It looks like a $120 point-n-shoot. At least make the camera looks more like business if you want to put a huge sensor in that body.
Who wants a tablet that has a 2 hour battery life, seriously?
Instead of concentrating on the operating system, I do wish Nokia could improve on the (already excellent) camera of the Pureview 808 in some aspects. Some of the improvements or additional features I hope to see are as follows:-
1) Better lens or sensor quality for improved IQ. mainly in clarity, colours and sharpness.
2) Better imaging processor for improved low light performance ie. noise reduction (NR) feature/option included.
3) More manual controls such as aperture and shutter speed priority modes.
4) An additional plastic lens cover that opens and closes at the touch of a button, just like one found in most P&S cameras.
5) Silent shutter option for discrete operation or picture taking activity.
6) A slightly larger 4.5" screen with higher resolution.
Looking very promising.
Let's have a look at the size of the sensor first before attempting to judge the quality of the camera. The typical size of sensors in most smartphones is approximately 1/3.6" which almost always guarantee poor low light performance.
If the size of the sensor on this thing is at least 1/1.7" or larger then only I'll believe it has the potential to become a decent cameraphone.
Hobbit13: I'm happy I bought a Nokia 808, instead of waiting for the 920! My 808 can easily compete with a Canon S90 high-end compact. While the output of the 920 can only compete with compacts in the $75 range!
If only the 808 would have had stabilization.....
Lupti - re. your comment on high ISO of 808 isn't better as it only has more aggressive NR, I don't think this is the case. The Canon S95's sensor is quite a bit smaller than the 808 at 1/1.7". The larger 1/1.2" sensor of the 808 produces better results in high ISO. Have a look at the studio comparison tool here on DPReview. The image of the S95 shows greater levels of noise than the 808's image in ISO800.
ryder78: Compact cameras are considered obsolete at this age when most smartphones now have good quality 8MP to 12MP built-in cameras. The Nokia Pureview 808 phone produced better IQ than most mid level P&S cameras costing up to $350. Fortunately, the Sony RX100 has restored some pride in the compact market. Having that said, the difference in image quality between a good cameraphone and dedicated compacts such as Canon S100, Panasonic LX7 etc. isn't that huge, and it's nit-picking really when comparison is done between these devices.
The only area where most smartphones fail is in low light. Nevertheless, the Nokia Pureview 808's low light performance is even better than most mid-level compacts, losing out to only the top-end compact in the Sony RX100.
I predict the compact market to shrink even more in the next 2-3 years. Five years from now, we may even see major camera manufacturers stop producing compact cameras and concentrate more on larger interchangeable lenses cameras and DSLRs.
(continued from above)... the relatively compact form of it. The same can't be said about compact cameras although there will be folks who carry them wherever they go. People only bring out their cameras during special occasions, or when they know they will be taking some photos during that day. Otherwise, I fail to see the reason why one would carry a compact camera with him (at all times).
There are quite a few phones, not only the Pureview 808, that have made great advancements in producing stellar results in low light. The Lumia 920 running on Windows 8 platform has remarkable capability in low light even with its tiny sensor. Somehow the designers managed to tweak the software and maximize its performance in low light with limitations in hardware. With Nokia paving the way for other smartphone manufacturers, I foresee camera phones to render entry-level compacts obsolete in the next few years. Only the better ones will survive, like the LX7 or RX100 etc.
Pertinent points. I didn't elaborate too much in my previous post due to the limitation in the number of words one can post here. I agree that the evolution of better camera phones has forced camera manufacturers to up their game. I really don't see why anyone would consider entry-level P&S cameras these days when a decent smartphone can capture photos with similar clarity and detail, if not better. Yes, it is true that these budget compact cameras offer more in optical/digital zoom, controls and viewfinder, but then not everyone needs these features, and the most important aspect of a camera, at least to me, is in image quality.
The 808 isn't a perfect phone. It runs on an outdated Symbian operating system, an OS which is extremely user-hostile when it comes to internet browsing and other common tasks usually carried out on a smartphone. As we all know, a phone is quite indispensable at this age as it will be with the user at all times throughout the day, due to... (continued below)
Compact cameras are considered obsolete at this age when most smartphones now have good quality 8MP to 12MP built-in cameras. The Nokia Pureview 808 phone produced better IQ than most mid level P&S cameras costing up to $350. Fortunately, the Sony RX100 has restored some pride in the compact market. Having that said, the difference in image quality between a good cameraphone and dedicated compacts such as Canon S100, Panasonic LX7 etc. isn't that huge, and it's nit-picking really when comparison is done between these devices.