Maybe on a pixel-by-pixel basis, that theater shot is a bit grainy. But how many thousand pixels wide is it? If this were downsampled to any other camera's capability, it'd be incredible. I'm quite impressed by a shot in theater-level light.
My old Canon G series had a stiching feature that allowed multiple photos in a rectangular grid, resulting (on my laptop) in a huge increase in pixels for a shot (assuming the stitching was perfect, which it often wasn't). If this camera were to guide the shooter in scanning multiple rows of panos, and especially if one were to get a bit of a telephoto lens, this could make for some awesome hi-res shots.
angrywhtman: Putting aside the global economic depression/recession (yes we're in one), cameras have reached a point where many are not compelled to upgrade. Unless there is a significant change in technology, I don't see the need to upgrade.
Worse, the “significant change in technology” that might give both large- and small-sensor cameras say, another 6db s/n ratio, will make a very small impact on large sensor cameras' photos, while smartphones' photos will start looking even more competitive.
My older DSLR might get an upgrade before my next international travel, but very few viewers will notice the significantly better image that'll result. So I keep putting off the upgrade. Meanwhile, the change over the same period in the iPhone's quality is astonishing.
WaltFrench: I was a bit surprised by the evaluation of these photos. First, the 100% view that included the trees, looked quite artificial on the One, although it clearly had more detail. The trees looked like an undistinguished smush of green in the Sammy view, whereas the iPhone & Nokia seemed much more natural. In other words, totally different take on the shots.
Repositioning the HTC and Nokia images caused me to wonder why the Nokia & HTC cameras so suddenly took on different characteristics. Disconcerting, and needless.
Finally, let me vote that the very different pixel counts and focal lengths made it much more difficult to interpret the differences due to the 100% and same position rules. In real life, a photog wouldn't post or print a much bigger photo just because of more pixels, and would move closer or farther to get the desired view (when possible). I'd much prefer to see the same part of the subject to get a sense of how a closeup looks, even if it meant not having 1:1 images here.
Odd... the specific shot I was commenting on, a park of trees in front of a gray bldg with red trim, seems to have disappeared from being the second group of photos on the first page.
Anyhow, perhaps you'd comment on the closeup of your model's eye (“Portrait; Sunlight”). I thought the HTC closeup made it look like she had serious skin troubles; it looked like the Samsung sharpened her pores to make them look like shaving stubble.
I can't quite tell how visible that'd be in say, a 5X7 or 4X6, but with just a bit of cropping, I'd guess pretty obviously.
Do these uglifications really show in the images?
I was a bit surprised by the evaluation of these photos. First, the 100% view that included the trees, looked quite artificial on the One, although it clearly had more detail. The trees looked like an undistinguished smush of green in the Sammy view, whereas the iPhone & Nokia seemed much more natural. In other words, totally different take on the shots.
rocklobster: As another poster said, contrast is out-of-wack as wide dynamic range picture has not had proper tone-curve adjustment. And, anyway, does revealing the detail in the shadows (or the highlights) really make it a better picture? Is it really what the eye sees? The old HDR arguments may resurface.
Good simple solution to the 'problem' though. Wish Fujifilm had thought of this.
I likewise think the right-hand image looks awful. But you can never have too much data; if the technique manages to supply more bits of data — and I wonder how well it'll deal with nonlinearity around its reset point and/or moving subjects — then software will fix it.
Pavel Sokolov: Who need an unscratchable lens when you should buy new iphone every year? ;)
@Peiasdaf — even after Apple no longer adds new features that your former phone can use, it should still continue to work at its previous very nice level.
jsis: Who cares about a camera on a phone... this is free advertising for Apple.
If I remember correctly, surveys find that smartphones are used #1 for apps and/or web access, #2 for texting/tweeting and #3 for voice. Pictures are probably close behind voice.
Your post makes perfect sense — for somebody who hasn't prioritized other features besides voice — the defining characteristic of high-end phone users.
Vitruvius: They keep mentioning "zoom" but judjing by the lack of specifics on the optics or the actual word "optical" I suspect that they are using the full res data to digitally zoom in and out. This wouldn't be a big deal for most occasions but it does imply that you would NOT be able to actually take a 41MP image WITH zoom. It would also mean the it would have less data to downsample and create the TruView image while zooming. Hence the more you zoom in the more the image quality would drop, IF it actually does not have any "optical" zoom capability.Just saying... Its good to know what you are actually getting.
@vitruvius, you've got it pegged. But most comments are ignoring the relatively HUGE sensor size crammed into the phone that should retain quality rather well despite high magnification.
The 808 won't have the creative control that dpreview readers usually want, but for snaps — even zoomed in — it should handily trounce other cameraphones. Alas, people who really value that will already own an N8 or otherwise not draw new customers to the brand. In the US, squeezing in a 3rd smartphone OS will be a challenge for Microsoft (BlackBerry being a “dead man walking”) and they will not risk confusing customers by identifying Nokia with a niche feature on a last-gen OS.