Previous news story    Next news story

Just Posted: Nokia 808 PureView Review

By dpreview staff on Jul 30, 2012 at 22:12 GMT

We've just posted a six-page review of the Nokia 808 PureView, focusing on its photographic features and performance. On paper, the 808 offers the most advanced camera features of any smartphone, including manually selectable ISO sensitivity from 50-1600, exposure bracketing, and five white balance presets. Then, of course, there's the unique way it uses its large, high pixel-count sensor - over-sampling each image to offer 8, 5 or 3MP output for sharing or 38MP full res files if you prefer.

As well as an overview of the 808's photographic features, we've also included plenty of real-world and studio samples, and we've added the 808 to our standard studio comparison tool. This will allow you to take a look at how it performs alongside compact cameras and DSLRs in both its highest-resolution 38MP and 8MP PureView modes.

So just how much of a threat does this represent for conventional compact cameras? Read our six-page review to find out.

Comments

Total comments: 210
12
jtrade
By jtrade (Aug 17, 2012)

I'd love to think that this 808 fits the "One Ring to Rule them..." ideal for those of us who would like to carry just ONE piece of technology around. I'm going to ditch my iPhone 4 when the contract expires in October - I neither need nor want all those apps.

My present conclusion is that I will revert to a small, very cheap Samsung flip-phone (with looooong battery life) + a Sony WX-100, with a far fuller feature set than the 808 and vastly superior video, notably zoom and image stabilisation... and < half the price. I nearly bought an HX-20V the other day, but the WX-100 really is far more pocketable at less than half the volume, albeit with a slightly reduced spec.

Kudos to Nokia nonetheless.

1 upvote
odins2
By odins2 (Aug 8, 2012)

Has everyone in the world got a kick Nokia schedule. This is a PHONE yes a PHONE and for the average guy in the street something he can use for his snapshots its not an SLR its not a high end point and shoot. The Symbian system is perfectly adequate it has loads of useful grown up apps unless of course you want to play "shoot the zombie rebel kill everything that moves"
Why don't the major phone networks offer it it seems that everyone wants to knock Nokia. By the way I have a Samsung smartphone which has a poor camera so I miss some great shots that pop up out of the blue, I would change my contract for this Nokia if it was offered. So come on lets get real its a PHONE with a very good camera!!

3 upvotes
Rage Joe
By Rage Joe (Aug 7, 2012)

I think you should treat this camera phone as your second photographic memory, it´s always there when you need it. And the audio is also incredible! Keeping the ISOs low ( something that I you should do anyhow with all cameras, when ever possible) you get really decent outcome.

Look at the landscapes, how much more detail you get with anything else on the market right now? Perfect job for a phone company.

3 upvotes
Rage Joe
By Rage Joe (Aug 6, 2012)

Petrogel again! He must have really big pockets but no money or brains.

2 upvotes
Petrogel
By Petrogel (Aug 5, 2012)

Why someone has to buy a phone with an incapable ( ball breaking ) O.S, paying almost 700 euros when the same time with the same amount of money can have a DSLR and a phone ...

2 upvotes
WilliamJ
By WilliamJ (Aug 5, 2012)

Asking it is answering it !

2 upvotes
WilliamJ
By WilliamJ (Aug 5, 2012)

I can't conceive the need some of us have to give this cam-phone such a free promotion, again and again... and again.

Are they in fact crypto-sales representatives of Nokia flooding every web sites ? Are they just would-be buyers who are not so sure of their own choice and are looking for others reaction to comfort themselves in their futur purchase decision ?

1 upvote
vlad0
By vlad0 (Aug 2, 2012)

are we still comparing it against DSLRs and high end compacts that were all made with a single purpose in mind, and that is to take pictures ? Well .. that speaks volumes for the product...

The 808 created its own category, and it should be looked as a ratio between size/functionality vs. picture quality. Show me anything else on the market, that can produce that kind of quality/flexibility, in such a small package. The sensor module in the 808 is wayyy smaller than anything that comes even close in terms of quality.. I am not even going to mention the optics, because that is another masterpiece from Zeiss, which deserves a lot of credit.

Comment edited 43 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
DarkShift
By DarkShift (Aug 2, 2012)

"The sensor module in the 808 is wayyy smaller than anything that comes even close in terms of quality.."

Not quite sure about that. Judging the studio shots clearly the best quality comes ONLY if the phone used with low ISO settings and no digital zooming. When shot at high ISO it is easily killed by latest m4/3 cameras. The detail level goes down as lighting gets dimmer. DR and colours are not very good to begin with.

As for flexibility and UI, it's camera is still designed for consumers and not for somebody who takes photography more seriously ;) Yes it is the best camera phone to date, but somebody has smoked something if they claim that it offers better "flexibility" than real cameras.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
vlad0
By vlad0 (Aug 2, 2012)

i was talking about "device" flexibility, not the camera alone. Its a fully featured smartphone+decent camera.. you can't expect it to be better than high end dedicated cameras.

All in all, its goon enough for a lot of people.

1 upvote
zodiacfml
By zodiacfml (Aug 2, 2012)

The reason this thing happened because the manufacturers were too comfortable and chose a slow innovation race. Sony, a new comer, created something a little exciting, the RX100. Nokia is similar and taking risk, why make something when people buy the iPhones and Androids where the camera is good enough to them.

0 upvotes
vlad0
By vlad0 (Aug 2, 2012)

rx100 is pretty cool, but again, its 250 grams, and designed with one purpose only.. to take photographs. The 808 is 160 grams, and you have a fully featured smartphone + camera, which does quite well in most situations. And the rx100 is worth almost $700 .. can't even send a text with it.

My point is, why carry two devices ? If you are goint to to do that, carry a Nikon D800 along the 808... otherwise id doesn't make much sense.

Comment edited 10 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
HowaboutRAW
By HowaboutRAW (Aug 3, 2012)

vlad0:

The Nokia 808 is horrible at high ISOs, and the RX100 isn't really useable above ISO 1600.

There's no need to introduce the large and expensive D800 as the only alternative to the Sony or the Nokia. (Also the D700 still way out performs the D800 in lowlight.)

0 upvotes
AnHund
By AnHund (Aug 3, 2012)

It is incredible to compare this camera phone to a real camera. Makes no sense at all. The image quality of the RX100 is in a completely different league than mediocre output from this phone. It is a good camera for a phone, but that's about it.

2 upvotes
WilliamJ
By WilliamJ (Aug 5, 2012)

Once again, Anhund has perfectly summed up my thought. This cam-phone is what it is and nothing more.

Wanting to compare it non-stop to a "real" camera is pointless as this item is good - maybe very good ? - just in some well-defined conditions of distance, luminosity and speed of reaction. It's as is one wanted to compare a swiss-army-knife to a damascus knife used to be used quickly and extensively in a restaurant. For sure the swiss-army-knife cut well enough, but it reaches its limit in no time.

1 upvote
zodiacfml
By zodiacfml (Aug 2, 2012)

Though the reviewer touched on bad highlight clipping, he also added that such problem is prevalent in compacts or any other camera phone.
I agree with him that you can judge a small photo whether it is taken with a compact or DSLR by just looking at the DR or lack of it.

Bad handling of highlights is obvious in today's cameras. Manufacturers can get away with more MP because people are just looking at the resolution and noise performance. Noise is muffled with noise reduction and reduced through better electronics but handling highlights require big, fat, old fashioned photosites.

I still consider this Nokia very good compared to plenty compacts out there.

3 upvotes
Kelvin L
By Kelvin L (Aug 1, 2012)

I'm disappointed that Nokia Australia isn't bringing this phone into the country. I was hoping to get one of these to replace an ageing iPhone.

0 upvotes
kadardr
By kadardr (Aug 1, 2012)

The rendering technology of the PureView Nokia (oversampling) should be benchmarked to normal cameras of various classes and sensor sizes to evaluate its real value.

As we learned from the interview embedded in the review: the oversampling technology is protected as Nokia's own. Could this technology be adopted by the camera makers? ?

Would the same Nokia camera without the smartphone be a viable product option for the masses? ?

2 upvotes
resuyaber
By resuyaber (Aug 1, 2012)

how many loosers around?!... look upstairs, then click - sample image/studio comparison tool - and put what ever you like against 808 (except d800) , and on martini bootle try to read "alessandria year" on ANY FF camera! no way Hose.. and on Nokia 808 you can.
Of course, nobody here will try to put 808 in dark, to put brighter , sharper lens, zoom's , have ergonomics and other aspects Dslr's can do. But Nokia 808 HAVE REAL RESOLUTION! (probably real 30MP) Period :)

2 upvotes
DarkShift
By DarkShift (Aug 1, 2012)

By ISO 800 it starts to look like watercolour painting and most of details is lost.

1 upvote
vision63
By vision63 (Aug 1, 2012)

What's a looser?

0 upvotes
resuyaber
By resuyaber (Aug 1, 2012)

vision 63 , looser is loser,( when somebody don't speak english as native language)

0 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (Aug 2, 2012)

A looser is a guy who likes to dress loose-fit clothes.

0 upvotes
Wei Steen
By Wei Steen (Aug 1, 2012)

One thing to remember: Nokia 808 does waaay better than all Canon/Nikon/xxx DSLRs and compact cameras in making phone calls and sending SMS. In fact, I have never trusted my Canon 550D with a SIM card, it fits in SD card slot badly...

6 upvotes
rafalvonbur
By rafalvonbur (Aug 1, 2012)

There is simply no way that I will change my DSLR for one of those. Proper camera is what i use the most and phone well texts and conversations. i'll keep it that way.

1 upvote
resuyaber
By resuyaber (Aug 1, 2012)

sure that... but why negate resolution quality of 808? hurts?

0 upvotes
vlad0
By vlad0 (Aug 1, 2012)

Its a DSLR companion, not a replacement. Or in my case, my DSLR is a companion to the 808, since I find myself taking pics with the phone more often than with the DSLR.. 808 is pretty much always with me.

The camera start up time is impressive as well, from locked to ready.. can't be more than 1-2 secs.

4 upvotes
Zvonimir Tosic
By Zvonimir Tosic (Aug 1, 2012)

I wonder who will revolutionarise smartphones with an electric toothbrush, or with a milk frother? Those two are in fact useful ideas.

1 upvote
rafalvonbur
By rafalvonbur (Aug 1, 2012)

all the tools in swiss knife would be nice to.

0 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (Aug 2, 2012)

And a toaster and espresso machine.

0 upvotes
WilliamJ
By WilliamJ (Aug 5, 2012)

An integrated electric shaver would be a most for many of us.

0 upvotes
AnHund
By AnHund (Aug 1, 2012)

After having looked through the samples gallery I'm impressed with the quality from this camera phone, but then again it doesn't even stand up very well to my 10 year old nikon Coolpix 4500 and it certainly lacks far behind the image quality that we all have become used to from dedicated cameras like S100, J1/V1, RX100, 4/3, NEX etc. just to mention a few examples.

The fact is that this is a camera phone with a small lens and even though quality has improved immensely (here mostly by down sampling) then it is just a camera phone that do not stand up very well to a real camera in terms of image quality.

I'm sure that will change over the next few years and the gap between this type of camera and dedicated cameras will become much closer.

2 upvotes
resuyaber
By resuyaber (Aug 1, 2012)

one more looser... look upstairs, then click - sample image/studio comparison tool - and put what ever you like against 808 (except d800) , and on martini bootle try to read "alessandria year" on ANY FF camera! no way Hose.. and on Nokia 808 you can.
Of course, nobody here will try to put 808 in dark, to put lens, zoom's and other aspects Dslr's can do. But Nokia 808 HAVE RESOLUTION! Period

1 upvote
AnHund
By AnHund (Aug 1, 2012)

I'm sorry for you resuyaber if you can't see it I'm afraid no one can help you. I'm talking about image quality not resolution. Nobody cares about resolution if the image quality is mediocre which is the case with the 808 compared to any of the cameras I mentioned.

2 upvotes
Der Steppenwolf
By Der Steppenwolf (Aug 1, 2012)

And ALL cameras you mentioned, save for one (S100) are actually small SYSTEM cameras. This phone should be benched against P&S cameras and with those, it stands it's ground.
Oh btw, it can also make calls and text, surf and so on. It also happends to be always in a pocket, try put one of those cameras you mentioned before in your pocket and then come back for further discussion.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
WilliamJ
By WilliamJ (Aug 5, 2012)

Oh, my... It's crystal clear that some among us (oder "unter uns" ?) are Nokia satellites sent here and there to promote this item that is to a Dslr what's a broken watch to a good Perrelet: for sure it gives absolute hour two times a day, and suffers no monthly variation. Is it worth buying such a watch though ? For my part, I prefer the Perrelet even if it's not atomically exact these "two times a day". Instead, it's exact well enough every hour a day, isn't it better ?

And insisting all over again on the RESOLUTION (in capital, in case we are too stupid to understand) is a sufficient proof the ones who talk of photography using this criterion extensively are not photo-connoisseurs. Their aggressive as well as childish behaviour stands against the product they intend to make us buy.

For my part, it's no use further insisting, I hate to be fooled by a hard-seller.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Karroly
By Karroly (Aug 1, 2012)

@rpm40,
"It may be more challenging to shoot a nice photo with a cameraphone than with a top end dslr..."

But it is more challenging to most people to open even an entry-level DSLR user's manual and learn all its features and subtleties. That is why P&S cameras sell more than DSLRs (apart from price/weight/size) and people use their cameraphone...

1 upvote
elave
By elave (Aug 1, 2012)

the aquiles heel of nokia and their stronger side is hardware. Design is beautiful!, software is adequate but processing units and ram are impossible to cope with .. and yet theyi give you something like this!

Nokia put the equinox cuad core or the tegra 2 ! and make a flag ship again!

This is a great compact camera but a horrible phone!.

I rather have something like a micro 4/3 or maybe the canon s95 and a great phone!.

Because a phone is a tool and it needs to work good always!.

But I recon ... great camera!!!!

0 upvotes
Mike Griffin
By Mike Griffin (Aug 1, 2012)

The 808 incorporates several leading edge technologies. Mainstream camera manufacturers must be asking themselves why they didn't come up with such ideas first.

2 upvotes
alfpang
By alfpang (Aug 1, 2012)

It's still not clear how the 808 stacks up against compact cameras (although the comparison test looks decent vs the Canon S95)

At any rate, I think I've just found my answer to what spare phone to buy when I travel (and need a 2nd phone to roam with)

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (Aug 1, 2012)

Yup, for example relative DR tests (see my posts below regarding the RX100) are still missing...

0 upvotes
h2k
By h2k (Aug 1, 2012)

Even with last years Nokia 701, i made nice photos and 1 was printed by a magazine (i removed all Exif first). Yes, hi-iso images look like watercolor paintings - but only at pixel level, at a lower level they look nice and are good memories of relaxed evenings without logging a real camera around.

Some apps for Symbian are missing i guess, including useful GPS tracker and Nokias can't be connected with new cameras to be controlled via Android (i'd love live view on an external device).

Some nice things about my Nokia 701:
- solid Old World build quality
- dedicated button for camera on, then snap
- dedicated toggle button for screen off + screen locked, then screen on + unlocked
- LED flash/video light useful as torchlight
- general ease of use
- alarm clock usable when phone OFF
- navigation with maps WITHOUT connecting to internet or mobile service provider in many countries

I made good use of all these features mentioned above. I just wish there was a Nokia for Android.

2 upvotes
vlad0
By vlad0 (Aug 1, 2012)

RF and voice quality are very good, probably the best of all the phones I've owned thus far.

0 upvotes
AmaturFotografer
By AmaturFotografer (Aug 1, 2012)

Finally people realized that the more mp, the better. Let the megapixel war begin(again)!

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
resuyaber
By resuyaber (Aug 1, 2012)

In dpr studio comparison tool i find ONLY one DSLR ( Nikon D800) have better resolution than Nokia 808 ??? Is there something wrong with my eyes?

1 upvote
AnHund
By AnHund (Aug 1, 2012)

Resolution and image quality has nothing to do with each other.

1 upvote
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (Aug 1, 2012)

"Resolution and image quality has nothing to do with each other."

Static megapixel count maybe, particularly with small sensors and/or shitty optics (some examples: Sony's / Nikon's latest 16-18 Mpixel 1/2.3" or even 1/2.5" P&S and superzoom cameras). Effective (true) resolution is, however, excellent in the case of the 808. It just can't be compared to the above-mentioned, new, Mpixel count-wise, vastly overspecced Sony / Nikon models heavily smearing away all details even at base ISO.

2 upvotes
resuyaber
By resuyaber (Aug 1, 2012)

By AnHund
"Resolution and image quality has nothing to do with each other."

Yes, i know it hurt :) that 808 have better resolution (resolve more details) even that 5D3

1 upvote
AnHund
By AnHund (Aug 1, 2012)

@resuyaber. It hurts to see that people believe that this camera can compare to a 5D3 or even a good P&S :-) It is however an interesting technology and results are very good for a camera phone.

3 upvotes
lensberg
By lensberg (Aug 1, 2012)

But it will never ever come close to bettering the 5D III at high ISO, dynamic range, depth of feild, per-pixel definition and just sheer all round versatility...

Taking your theory into consideration, at base ISO its equal if not better than the D800 too at detail resolution & capture...

3 upvotes
CFynn
By CFynn (Aug 1, 2012)

Of course - it has far more depth of field than a DSLR. :-)

2 upvotes
resuyaber
By resuyaber (Aug 1, 2012)

to Lensberg ...
this is not theory - you have samples to see with your eyes (if you like). and i excluded D800 as you can read. (and meaby some very few other exotic far over 10k$ cameras.. ) but DPReview stuff put over 130 very nice cameras in compare tool list, and nokia 808 beat them ALL (except one)

0 upvotes
WilliamJ
By WilliamJ (Aug 5, 2012)

Nothing but ludicrous. Just try to take photos of a tennis match, of a politician interview, of a quick event happening 50 meters away or what you think could be a UFO speeding in the sky in the twillight... and you will find your cam-phone is good to nothing, except taking funny photographs of your best friend picking his nose on the sly, or your girlfriend eating sloppily her melting Ben & Jerry's ice cream.

1 upvote
jon404
By jon404 (Jul 31, 2012)

Phone aside, are there any apps for this thing?

Will be interesting to see how it evolves -- if Nokia could run Android or Windows, they would have a winner.

Are the blown-out highlights the result of too many photosites for such a small sensor?

1 upvote
vetsmelter
By vetsmelter (Aug 1, 2012)

Although am here to learn about the photographic capabilities of the N8's successor, I feel the lack of knowledge about Symbian is as widespread as the idea that it is a "dead" OS.
Installable applications I currently use:
-Camera Pro, Shutter Pro, Camera Lover Pack (all creative image capture softwares)
-FlickrUP (upload pictures to Flickr - Nokia for same dark reason has removed built in Flickr support in the N8)
-Joikuspot (share your 3G by creating a Wifi hotspot)
-Nokia Internet Radio
-Remote Multidrive, SymFTP setup FTP/webservers on internet / wifi network, share your phone's drives on the net(work)
-Youtubedownloader
-Smartoffice
-Apps Switcher (soft button for multitaksing overview), App Stop (kill all or selectively to free memory - if you want to use Shutter Pro)
-Opera Mobile (webbrowser) , Minibrowser (webbrowser with easy front button to turn on/off Java)
-Skype
-MyExplorer (files)
-Recordoid (record voice)
-Nokia sleeping screen (beautiful clock and image, always on)
..

3 upvotes
tomtom50
By tomtom50 (Jul 31, 2012)

At ISO 1600 it is not far from the Canon S100. In bright light it captures more detail than some dslrs. It fits in a phone.

Perhaps Nokia should produce a tiny camera based on the same sensor. Make the lens a bit bigger and a stop faster. It would still be the tiniest P&S out there, and the faster lens would take the high ISO performance to high-end P&S levels in a far smaller package.

0 upvotes
resuyaber
By resuyaber (Aug 1, 2012)

"In bright light it captures more detail than some dslrs" you are not correct, as 808 outperforma ALL DSLR (except high end ones, D800). Even with 5D3 is tie in terms on resolution , and as you say in bright light)... you can check studio compariison tool on this site. You can make that claim on other site where you can't check that easy .

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
AnHund
By AnHund (Aug 1, 2012)

It is completely ridiculous to compare this camera phone to even a Canon s100 which outperforms this phone by far regarding image quality. It is an impressive camera phone but comparing to dslrs etc. makes no sense at all.

Comment edited 34 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (Aug 1, 2012)

"Canon s100 which outperforms this phone by far regarding image quality. "

The S100 has definitely worse optical resolution (compared to the 8 Mpixel mode of the 808) and, in JPG, smears away details more at ISO 1600. Just two examples (cont'd):

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/studiocomparefullscreen.asp#baseDir=%2Freviews_data&cameraDataSubdir=boxshot&indexFileName=boxshotindex.xml&presetsFileName=boxshotpresets.xml&showDescriptions=false&headerTitle=Studio%20scene&headerSubTitle=Standard%20studio%20scene%20comparison&masterCamera=nokia_pureview808&masterSample=2012-07-20-0457&slotsCount=4&slot0Camera=nokia_pureview808&slot0Sample=2012-07-20-0457&slot0DisableCameraSelection=true&slot0DisableSampleSelection=true&slot0LinkWithMaster=true&slot1Camera=nokia_pureview808&slot1Sample=2012-07-26-0596&slot2Camera=nikon_d800&slot2Sample=dsc_8318&slot3Camera=nikon_v1&slot3Sample=dsc_0304&x=0.001756440281030445&y=0.004189944134078212

1 upvote
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (Aug 1, 2012)

(continued): check out how the S100 / 808 renders "Paul Smith" on the face of the clock and whether it's readable. Certainly better (albeit more noisy) is the 808 in this case (detail retention).

Also, at (cont'd!)

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/studiocomparefullscreen.asp#baseDir=%2Freviews_data&cameraDataSubdir=boxshot&indexFileName=boxshotindex.xml&presetsFileName=boxshotpresets.xml&showDescriptions=false&headerTitle=Studio%20scene&headerSubTitle=Standard%20studio%20scene%20comparison&masterCamera=nokia_pureview808&masterSample=2012-07-20-0457&slotsCount=4&slot0Camera=nokia_pureview808&slot0Sample=2012-07-20-0457&slot0DisableCameraSelection=true&slot0DisableSampleSelection=true&slot0LinkWithMaster=true&slot1Camera=nokia_pureview808&slot1Sample=2012-07-26-0596&slot2Camera=nikon_d800&slot2Sample=dsc_8318&slot3Camera=nikon_v1&slot3Sample=dsc_0304&x=0.001756440281030445&y=0.004189944134078212

1 upvote
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (Aug 1, 2012)

(continued): check out how the two cameras render the vertical lines of the last-but-one big Japanese Kanjis, just before the lined area. I've annotated this Kanji in the following screenshot:

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/13100693/html/042012RetinaHDVideoPlayers/s100vs808.png

Can you count the number of vertical lines in the S100 shot? And what about the 808?

2 upvotes
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (Aug 1, 2012)

Finally, as far as DR is concerned,

Resolution is only one - but VERY important - part of the IQ. DR-wise, while we still don't have a numeric value, comparative shots with the RX100, both at base ISO, have shown better DR for the 808 than for the RX100.

Here's the discussion: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1046&thread=42098190

That is, I still wouldn't state "the S100 has surely much better DR than the 808". Again, the latter has beaten the RX100.

0 upvotes
dynax7d
By dynax7d (Jul 31, 2012)

When I used the studio shot comparison tool, to me the Nokia 808 resolved more detail than the best Canon and Nikon dslr cameras! Compact cameras were not even close.
How is that possible?

1 upvote
tomtom50
By tomtom50 (Jul 31, 2012)

At ISO 50, the Nikon 800e way outresolves the Nokia in the studio comparison tool.

1 upvote
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (Jul 31, 2012)

"At ISO 50, the Nikon 800e way outresolves the Nokia in the studio comparison tool."

Yup, the Nikon is indeed much better.

However, the 808 is way better than any P&S camera out there at low ISO's. Much better detail retention.

3 upvotes
resuyaber
By resuyaber (Aug 1, 2012)

finnaly someone who actualy see what is clear. ( many there will deny they eyes )

0 upvotes
AnHund
By AnHund (Aug 1, 2012)

He..he. Incredible that some people think resolution has anything to do with image quality. The s100 for example is far better than this camera phone that so easily blows highlights. Comparing it to dslrs is insane. It is an impressive camera phone though.

1 upvote
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (Aug 1, 2012)

"He..he. Incredible that some people think resolution has anything to do with image quality. The s100 for example is far better than this camera phone that so easily blows highlights. Comparing it to dslrs is insane. It is an impressive camera phone though."

Resolution is only one - but VERY important - part of the IQ. DR-wise, while we still don't have a numeric value, comparative shots with the RX100, both at base ISO, have shown better DR for the 808 than for the RX100.

Here's the discussion: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1046&thread=42098190

That is, I still wouldn't state "the S100 has surely much better DR than the 808". Again, the latter has beaten the RX100.

Comment edited 36 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
AnHund
By AnHund (Aug 1, 2012)

Sorry Menneisyys but the RX100 obliterates this camera phone by a large margin as far as image quality goes.

1 upvote
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (Aug 1, 2012)

"Sorry Menneisyys but the RX100 obliterates this camera phone by a large margin as far as image quality goes."

At high ISO surely. At low ISO, DR-wise? Well, dunno - the comparative images don't look very promising for the RX100...

Of course it's too early to make a conclusion. Nevertheless, I still wouldn't write off the 808 so easily, not even in the DR department...

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Jul 31, 2012)

The big deal breaker for me, of the 808 as a camera is the abysmal highlight clipping and the highlight roll-off that, well, doesn't roll.

This, the less than wonderful high ISO performance, and the unfriendly form-factor make it extremely unlikely that enthusiasts will stop buying high end P&S anytime soon. But I do applaud Nokia for pushing the envelope in the camera-phone space.

2 upvotes
LensBeginner
By LensBeginner (Aug 1, 2012)

You forgot purple fringes... those roll pretty well... (e.g. the boat in the picture) ;)

1 upvote
RusVolley
By RusVolley (Jul 31, 2012)

Simply 【First phone with "camera"】 Bravo!

5 upvotes
Stephen_C
By Stephen_C (Jul 31, 2012)

I feel like duct taping a Galaxy III to a Sony RX 100. Sony could probably do a more elegant job than I, of course.

6 upvotes
Artichoke
By Artichoke (Jul 31, 2012)

I looked long & hard at the Nokia 808 & Symbian was the deal breaker for me
also it is not available except in an unlocked version, which meant more of a hassle for me using it as a phone
I went with the Samsung Gallaxy III which has an excellent, though more conventional, camera
what I like is how well it integrates various commonly used cellphone camera functions
here is a sample of what it can do --------> http://ic2.pbase.com/g4/90/46890/2/144925387.hI3Aalhi.jpg
which is an available light pussycat picture
AF is surprisingly good & it has a swell macro mode that I use all the time
I much prefer WebOs to Ice Cream Sandwich, but having that in the Gallaxy is a dream
too bad Nokia is likely going with Win 8 for this phone when released in a locked version
WebOs is such a fine OS for cellphones
HP's decision to sink their WebOs devices will be studied in years to come as one of the great business blunders

0 upvotes
vetsmelter
By vetsmelter (Jul 31, 2012)

Artichoke, I feel with you about WebOS. Too bad the camera in the WebOS Pre 3 is lousy. I just couldn't live with that. The multitaksing on the Pre 3 is great and I love the screen.

Did you study the Nokia N9? The camera is somewhat better and the Linux Debian based OS is more powerful than that on WebOS device.
Maemo (Harmattan / MeeGo) is such a fine OS for cellphones.
Nokia's decision to sink their long standing Maemo line of pocketable internet devices will be studied in years to come as one of the great business blunders.

Luckily the Maemo Team has now united in the Jolla project.
A phone is due to be released this year but I don't expect a great camera at first.

for the waiters: http://www.forbes.com/sites/ewanspence/2012/07/21/finlands-jolla-will-be-the-ferrari-of-the-smartphone-world/

0 upvotes
obeythebeagle
By obeythebeagle (Jul 31, 2012)

I am amazed at the quality of the images from my 8 meg droid cam, and it has a tiny sensor. This camera is a revelation, with a relatively large sensor, Zeiss lens and many megapixels. For a cell phone, the posted pictures are fantastic. Who wouldn't want one if you were without a dslr? I will however wait for a droid model.

0 upvotes
Schwermetall
By Schwermetall (Jul 31, 2012)

My hope is on Sony. They can do both (cameras and smartphones) very well.
But they still sleeping :-(

0 upvotes
vlad0
By vlad0 (Jul 31, 2012)

they don't want to hurt their own p and s market.. Nokia,HTC, and Apple don't care. If Apple had this technology, they would ruin the compact camera market, just like they did to the music player market with the ipod. Compact makers are lucky that its Nokia...

2 upvotes
stoic little
By stoic little (Jul 31, 2012)

@vlad: I doubt Apple would make a phone like this. It's too bulky for their taste. :)

0 upvotes
WilliamJ
By WilliamJ (Jul 31, 2012)

As far as I'm concerned, I do not care going out without my phone as I don't use it so much, but I absolutely can't bear being without any camera. Thus, I wonder if one day, we won't have such a news not about a phone that can be used as a "quite good" camera but about a camera than can be used as a phone. I think, by the way, that the time is near when the "phone function" won't be an independent one and it will be added on demand as an application to any item of your choice: a watch, a pair of sunglasses, a key holder, a shoe... It will get smart ! In that case only, I will maybe be interested in a "camera that can take good pictures". Otherwise, out of the question !

3 upvotes
Josh152
By Josh152 (Jul 31, 2012)

If Nikon or Canon would make such a device it would be THE phone for photographers.

1 upvote
WilliamJ
By WilliamJ (Jul 31, 2012)

And I would sold by tens of millions world wide. Hey Canon ! Hey Nikon ! Don't forget us for the royalties !

1 upvote
WilliamJ
By WilliamJ (Jul 31, 2012)

Typo: it would sell by...

0 upvotes
yortuk
By yortuk (Jul 31, 2012)

Polaroid tried to go that way: http://androidandme.com/2012/01/devices/polaroid-sc1630-phonecamera-is-a-great-on-the-camera-not-so-much-on-the-phone/

0 upvotes
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (Jul 31, 2012)

"Polaroid tried to go that way: http://androidandme.com/2012/01/devices/polaroid-sc1630-phonecamera-is-a-great-on-the-camera-not-so-much-on-the-phone/"

720p in 2012? Sensor size unknown? Must be pretty small (around 1/3"), given that the thing has 3x optical zoom - they would have mentioned a billion of times it it was larger than 1/1.7". Well, I don't think it would have had better IQ than, say, the already IQ-challenged iPhone 4S or the S3...

0 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (Jul 31, 2012)

It had a great product name, though. 'Polaroid Android'. Someone had been listening to Radiohead there at Polaroid headquarters!

0 upvotes
Joe Ogiba
By Joe Ogiba (Jul 31, 2012)

Screw smartphones, I don't want a 2 year contract and monthly data plan. Put the sensor in a compact superzoom with 1080p60 and I might buy it. My Verizon feature phone was free on our family plan that my wife pays for and it has an 8mp camera with 720p HD video . I use my 64GB iPad with Verizon 4G LTE if I need to go on the internet and view web pages as well as my 13.3" i7 MacBook Air or MacMini with 26" monitor.

Comment edited 41 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Josh152
By Josh152 (Jul 31, 2012)

Personally I think everyone should just refuse to sign these ridiculous cell phone contracts and start negotiating sections of them with the carriers. The way it is now the contracts are very lopsided toward the carrier. This will only change if people stop signing them and stand up for themselves. Cell phone contracts are unfair because people let them be.

1 upvote
vetsmelter
By vetsmelter (Jul 31, 2012)

"2 year contract and monthly data plan" Why does this remind me of the time when I was depending on a photographer shop to develop my pictures? I did not love camera's for that reason :)
Lucky digital is here and phones are sold separately from data plans. (over here)

0 upvotes
Josh152
By Josh152 (Jul 31, 2012)

Well in the U.S. many carriers require you to purchase a data plan if you want a smartphone. Even if you don't need it. They literally won't sell you a plan without it.

0 upvotes
Marty4650
By Marty4650 (Jul 31, 2012)

These convergence appliances leave me cold. I don't even use the video function on my cameras. I prefer something that does one thing exceptionally well, over things that can do a lot of things somewhat well.

I realize there are lots of people who love the camera phone concept, but I really think Dpreview is casting their net much too widely now.

If they decided to start reviewing security cameras or endoscopes then someone would probably be thrilled. Because after all... they are also cameras of a sort.

IMHO, there are still plenty of real cameras that need reviewing... and that should be the priority of this website.

However, it's not my website. I am just a non-paying guest. And even with all this newly added clutter, Dpreview is still a great website.

So my opinion is just that. My opinion.

8 upvotes
WilliamJ
By WilliamJ (Jul 31, 2012)

"I don't even use the video function on my cameras" so don't I ! But I bet we are already both "old schools" ?

1 upvote
happypoppeye
By happypoppeye (Jul 31, 2012)

I have to disagree on a few points, all the while understanding where your coming from...
- security cameras and endoscopes are not something a consumer would usually use as a walk around type camera, a smartphone is, so maybe taking it a bit far there
- these are real cameras, and probably should be a priority for DPR right now, seeing how Samsung sold 73 million units last quarter, Apple something like 15 million ...whether you like it or not, this is the biggest sub-sector of cameras sold and ever seen. Let's face it, DPR is out to make money, and reviews like this will bring many more viewers

...over my character limit, now thats annoying

6 upvotes
happypoppeye
By happypoppeye (Jul 31, 2012)

...con't

That said, I hate cell phones, and never carry one around just to take photos and hardly ever carry the one around I have, but I do carry around a slim compact camera ...but I'm old and out of touch ...I really do think these camera phones are where the youth are going ...I think the whole SLR vs m4/3 is really offbase and I think in the near future it's going to be the ultra small compacts and cellphone cams that and ILC camera is goingto be fighting against... we'll see, all opinion, most on this site don't get that.

1 upvote
WilliamJ
By WilliamJ (Jul 31, 2012)

Just a word about the "best seller" argument: snake oil was sold by hectoliters in the past, it did not ever prove it was a good medecine. In fact, while being popular toward naives, it didn't cure anything (cf: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snake_oil ) in history, and if it was still avaible, for sure there would be new-born suckers to implore to be fooled in spite of what we know in our century about that snake oil (toad oil in Japan).

For the rest, I'm glad we largely agree.

0 upvotes
Nico Burns
By Nico Burns (Jul 31, 2012)

You might have a point, except for the fact that this camera (the camera part of the phone) represents some real innovation in camera technology, and surpasses the image quality of most pocket cameras.

5 upvotes
Bill Bentley
By Bill Bentley (Jul 31, 2012)

I'm 49. I still have my Minolta XD-11 with mint leatherette trim. I also have a Canon DSLR, a Panny bridge and a Panny P&S. I for one would be very happy to have image quality rivaling my bridge or DSLR in a smartphone.

I'm trying to simplify my life and my collection of "possessions". The smartphone helps with this a lot. Heck, two weeks ago I just stopped wearing a watch for the first time in my adult life. I always have my phone with me so I'm not missing the watch at all. I'm looking forward to the convergence becoming better and more affordable in the coming days.

For me, the emphasis is on AFFORDABLE, because I'm on a no-contract, pre-paid phone plan. Have been for years now. As others have mentioned I'm in no hurry to pay $50/month just to have the privilege of carrying a cool phone/camera in my pants pocket.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Richard Butler
By Richard Butler (Jul 31, 2012)

If you took the SIM out of an 808, it could be seen as a touchscreen rival to something like a Ricoh GRD series (albeit a very different approach).

Ignore the smartphone aspect (though that also involves ignoring the features that are helping smartphones kill-off conventional compacts), and you still have a prime-lens camera with a huge sensor and a really interesting approach to the way it uses its many pixels.

It doesn't matter that it's a 'convergence appliance' - it's a fascinating piece of kit that raises all sorts of interesting possibilities about the future of small cameras (regardless of whether they can make calls).

This is exactly the sort of thing dpreview has always been interested in.

9 upvotes
WilliamJ
By WilliamJ (Jul 31, 2012)

To Bill Bentley: I understand you perfectly and I find very sound in mind to make ones possible to limit the burthen of our countless acquisitions. Look at how many remote-controlers we have for instance to understand immediatly what we are talking about.

Yet, I fear the price to pay to practicality will be too high very soon. I know some Japanese who lost (were stolen from) their valuable phone: the thing in itself is very expensive, that's a point, but beyond that, it contained their transportation card paid for one or several months, their watch, their diary, part of their schedule, emails, photographs taken, downloaded songs, and in some cases their electronic-purse with "some" money in it.

We have to never forget, never, that concentration may mean speed and efficiency, but overall it happens a day or another when it proves to be a desastrous weakness. That day, we loose all and it's too late to regret.

0 upvotes
Timbukto
By Timbukto (Jul 31, 2012)

Yes I like buying devices that do one thing extremely well. Which means for me being able to shoot a DSLR with portrait primes is doing one thing extremely well, but having a smart phone with a fast wide-angle lens of good quality + innovative sensor is still a big plus. It allows my DSLR to do one thing extremely well compared to having to use a larger and more IQ compromised zoom for social 'snapshots'.

0 upvotes
larrytusaz
By larrytusaz (Jul 31, 2012)

{Marty4650) I agree 100%, and I have a smartphone. But I'm like you, I'm tired of all of this "convergence." Yes it is handy to have 3011 features in 1 item that's always with you, but such an item does not perform the functions as well as the "one thing only" devices it replaces, even if it does it "good enough."

Even things like the calculator app on a smartphone--compared to an all-touch device you have actual physical buttons with tactile feedback. Compared to something like a Blackberry, it's still better because you're not having to use the numbers in the reverse "telephone" format (with 7-8-9 on the bottom row as phones do it vs the top row as calculators do it). I use my phone's GPS but I still own a Garmin Nuvi so that I can do other things on the phone while the GPS handles driving directions (my wife typically drives while I'm riding "shotgun"). A phone that does nothing but phone calls (I'm thinking landline) will have multiple line capabilities & such. The list goes on.

0 upvotes
Bill Bentley
By Bill Bentley (Jul 31, 2012)

@WilliamJ. Your point is taken, but pretty much the same, or worse, could happen by a pickpocket at the train station. I am not suggesting putting your whole life inside the phone and replacing your wallet, although it is coming to that no doubt. Plus, everything is moving towards "cloud" back up so even if you lose your phone all your pictures and data are one new phone and a download away. Plus the new phone security wipes the lost/stolen phone data remotely and completely.

0 upvotes
littlebitstrouds
By littlebitstrouds (Aug 1, 2012)

The best camera, is the camera you have with you. Fact is, I never know when I'm going to see something I want to document, and I just won't carry more then my cellphone wallet and keys with me throughout the day. I bought my Evo LTE phone because of it's amazing camera. I may trade it in, at a loss, and get this if the camera feature is that much better. There are consumers that love these reviews, and am glad they are covered.

Here's what I can do with my phone camera:
http://youtu.be/IRV2XtkntjI

0 upvotes
Marty4650
By Marty4650 (Aug 2, 2012)

No.

The camera you have with you is just "the camera you have with you." There is nothing "best" about being the only option you have.

This entire website was designed to help people make gear choices, and not for simply spewing old cliches that really mean absolutely nothing.

0 upvotes
rpm40
By rpm40 (Jul 31, 2012)

Add a waterproof case to the 808, and you have the highest IQ ruggedized point and shoot you can buy! Sure, the new waterproof Oly TG-1 zooms optically, but the pureview "zoom" makes up for it, and at full resolution the Nokia definitely pulls away in IQ.

I think using similar tech to the 808 to design a proper weatherized pocket cam would be a great idea.

0 upvotes
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (Jul 31, 2012)

What if someone rings while you're taking a snapshot?

2 upvotes
Yiotis
By Yiotis (Jul 31, 2012)

You will know who to blame for losing a shot or even sue him or her for losing millions from a potential photo, from a mobile phone...

3 upvotes
WilliamJ
By WilliamJ (Jul 31, 2012)

In that case, it's time to realize the big mistake you commited relying on your phone to take pictures. Hard life lesson !

2 upvotes
Schwermetall
By Schwermetall (Jul 31, 2012)

Push the red button and take a picture.
But OK maybe this was the important moment.
But what if you want to take a snapshot and don't have your dedicated camera in your pocket.

0 upvotes
WilliamJ
By WilliamJ (Jul 31, 2012)

In that case just use the one that is included in your watch, or in your pen, or in your glasses, or in your anything else (cf: http://www.spyville.com/pepospycabow.html ).

0 upvotes
AlanG
By AlanG (Jul 31, 2012)

Simply turn the phone off or don't answer it while shooting. I wouldn't answer my phone when shooting fleeting photos with a DSLR either.

Comment edited 18 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
vlad0
By vlad0 (Jul 31, 2012)

if its that important, put the phone in airplane/offline mode..

1 upvote
ManuelVilardeMacedo
By ManuelVilardeMacedo (Jul 31, 2012)

Only two readers spotted the irony. Cell phone fanboys are just too serious. Relax.

0 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Jul 31, 2012)

Nice review but why are all the comment from last evening gone?

2 upvotes
Zdenek Janda
By Zdenek Janda (Jul 31, 2012)

It seems that there are two parallel discussions related to Nokia 808 review, this one and the following one (on bottom of page):

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/8083837371/review-nokia-808-pureview/6

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
AndrewG NY
By AndrewG NY (Aug 1, 2012)

Dunno. I had a comment yesterday evening that's gone missing.

Check that -- it WAS in the other thread!

Comment edited 13 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
RadioGnome
By RadioGnome (Jul 31, 2012)

Clear example of my statement, that cameraphones make excellent representations of the thing you point the lens at, but make totally uninteresting photographs.

1 upvote
Jon Rty
By Jon Rty (Jul 31, 2012)

If you need your camera to make your shots interesting, then you're not doing it right. Cameras may open possibilities, but they never make shots interesting, and a interesting photograph is possible with any camera.

4 upvotes
rpm40
By rpm40 (Jul 31, 2012)

Cameras don't make interesting photographs.

Sure, if you have a nice camera like a D800, great high iso, faster autofocus, more control over DOF, and so on, it's easier to get the picture you want- and yet, amazingly many photographers took great photos back when they were limited to asa 25, no autofocus, many with nearly infinite DOF.

It may be more challenging to shoot a nice photo with a cameraphone than with a top end dslr, just like its more challenging to shoot the same with an old film camera. There were plenty of good and bad photos taken then. There are plenty of good iphone photos and bad Canon 5d III photos taken now.

Maybe what you meant is that you're too lazy to work within the limits of a cameraphone to take interesting photographs? :P

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting
1 upvote
CBuff
By CBuff (Jul 31, 2012)

"Many with nearly infinite DOF" ?? What are you talking about ? Have you ever glazed in the glass of a 4x5 or 8x10 chamber? Do you know why the tilting mechanism was so useful back then ?

And then the other uninformed comment about camera and "Interesting" photographs.. to record reality, yes, you need an interesting subject. Have you ever spent 5 seconds examining a print by Edward Weston ? How you "feel" the texture of the object? Come on, stop showing your ignorance with posts like this one.

1 upvote
RadioGnome
By RadioGnome (Jul 31, 2012)

I find a lot more interesting photography using home-brew analog processes, shoe-boxes with pinholes, toy-camera's and such, as I find interesting photography using smartphones.

How dull can you get. Press a button and some programmers deliver the thing they have thought up for you. Sometimes with some pseudo-random-lomo-effect which is just another program.

Any subject gets better when photographed with something else than a smartphone. Be it an M9 or a Hello Kitty cam. Only sometimes, a smartphone is your best cam. That is when the smartphone is the only camera with you, and the choise is smartphone or no picture.

Comment edited 12 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
dkord
By dkord (Jul 31, 2012)

Images are flat with no pop but if you're planning on dirtying it up on instagram and posting it on facebook or twitter who cares.

2 upvotes
Mescalamba
By Mescalamba (Jul 31, 2012)

Hate to burst your bubble, but most digital photos are flat without processing.

1 upvote
sir_bazz
By sir_bazz (Jul 31, 2012)

There's even a few flat images taken with a DSLR in the OP's gallery. :P

0 upvotes
K_Photo_Teach
By K_Photo_Teach (Jul 31, 2012)

Can someone explain to me what this means for how lenses limit resolution?
I was under the impression from reading around here that even DSLR lenses were limiting the Nikon D800?

2 upvotes
BJL
By BJL (Jul 31, 2012)

For one thing, it is a good (though small) prime lens of fairly low f-stop, so diffraction and such are not killing the images the way some people fear. And it is a very big sensor as phones (and compacts) go, with pixels no smaller than on many other phones, and the un-cropped images are displayed at high PPI.

For another, the talk of lenses limiting the D800 is a bit exaggerated: usually, both the lens and the sensor contribute some limits on IQ, and that was true even with consumer grade 35mm film as the sensor, but despite that, improving the film or sensor while using the same lens usually gives some clear improvement in IQ.

0 upvotes
MarkInSF
By MarkInSF (Jul 31, 2012)

I'm impressed by the images, but every time I read 'PureImage' I remember that an antiquated meaning of 'pure' is dog poop. Really. I like the creativity here. I suspect these sorts of sensors will, eventually become common in phones and compact cameras of all types. Want to 'zoom' your laptop's webcam or your ruggedized underwater can? This solution is more compact and has no moving parts. The sensors will continue to get more sensitive so can be made even smaller. I suspect with more processing power a better job of oversampling can be accomplished, too. These are a bit softer than I would have expected, given how good the sensor is at full resolution.

0 upvotes
Sergey Borachev
By Sergey Borachev (Jul 31, 2012)

The main problem is a conundrum for those who also need a smartphone and also like to shoot photos. Do you get this camera and sacrifice on the features of a smartphone, like application, ussability, etc? or do you get a good smartphone like iPhone or Android phone and sacrifice on the camera features?

Or, I suppose, also this. Get both a good smartphone and something like a RX100, XZ-1/2 at a lot more cost in terms of weight and money but get all the best?

I think I will wait for an Android version of this camera, from someone else, since Nokia will only be using Microsoft os, if not Symbian. Story of its failure.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
MarkInSF
By MarkInSF (Jul 31, 2012)

The upcoming MS OS looks quite nice and clean. I just think it's going to have a hard time catching up in apps unless MS comes up with some killer feature to overcome that disadvantage. I don't think this is it, but it will make a few sales.

0 upvotes
vlad0
By vlad0 (Jul 31, 2012)

The 808 is a full featured smartphone.

5 upvotes
uluN808
By uluN808 (Jul 31, 2012)

@Sergey Borachev

Have you effer tested the 808?
I came from an Samsung Galaxy SII and sold it for the 808.
The 808 is a full smartphone!!!

3 upvotes
Schwermetall
By Schwermetall (Jul 31, 2012)

@ uluN808
I'm a owner of a N8 and since my wife have a GS2 I'm thinking about changing to Android (if there would be just one with the photo quality of at least the N8).

0 upvotes
CBuff
By CBuff (Jul 31, 2012)

the 808 is NOT upgradeable to Windows 8. End of story.

0 upvotes
vlad0
By vlad0 (Jul 31, 2012)

every time I take a phone in 5Mpix auto mode, I am amazed at how small the file size is, but the quality remains very good at the same time.. I am getting 500kb. to 1mb files that look great.

0 upvotes
thejohnnerparty
By thejohnnerparty (Jul 31, 2012)

Buy stock in Nokia & Microsoft. Nokia is presently selling for about $2.10/share. Microsoft is about $30.00/share. Both may reward you, but make no mistake - it is a risk!

0 upvotes
CBuff
By CBuff (Jul 31, 2012)

Right... give the share price, but not the market cap. Make a decision to invest based solely on share price, yeah baby, glad there are investors like you out there to keep the market fluid. Attaboy!

0 upvotes
highwave
By highwave (Jul 31, 2012)

I thought this phone would run the RX100 very close

sadly from what I've seen in the photo comparison with it and the Nikon V1, it seems there is a very sizable gap between it and the 1 inch sensor cameras out there.

It seems even the Canon S100 is better (can't be too sure with the Canon strong noise reduction)

phone cameras have a long long way to go before they kill off P&S like the RX100

1 upvote
familyogre
By familyogre (Jul 31, 2012)

"phone cameras have a long long way to go before they kill off P&S like the RX100"

Absolutely, and i doubt they ever will purely because of the limited form factor for a phone. However it does give the P+S industry a major kick up rear to raise their game.

1 upvote
MarkInSF
By MarkInSF (Jul 31, 2012)

I'd say Sony already raised their game with the RX100. Now I wish they'd combine all that camera goodness with the features others offer. No reason not to have a great camera without a touchscreen, Wi-Fi, and GPS. They take nothing away from the camera, add nevligible size or weight, and are useful. Camera purists will be unhappy, but they will still have their primitive playthings, too. Eventually the camera just becomes a phone. I'd much rather have that kind of camera phone, one that is a great camera first and a phone second. The 808 takes nice pictures -- for a phone.

1 upvote
marike6
By marike6 (Jul 31, 2012)

@MarkInSF

Actually glad my RX100 doesn't have a touchscreen. Changing settings is super fast with the control ring on the lens, and the lovely LCD is not constantly filled with fingerprints. It has all the modern goodness you could want, i.e. sweep panorama, hdr, auto dr, filters, etc, and like most Sony products it's not the slightest bit "primitive".

0 upvotes
rpm40
By rpm40 (Jul 31, 2012)

Are fingerprints and smudges more of a problem with some touchscreens over others? None of my cameras have touchscreens, but my iPhone does, and I rarely notice the fingerprints despite tapping away on that thing all day.

I am a bit anal myself about wiping down the screens on my cameras, but even then I only notice when the camera is off, so may do it at the end of the day before I put it away.

0 upvotes
Anfy
By Anfy (Jul 31, 2012)

It would be interesting to compare it - on the studio comparison tool - against the Sony RX100.

1 upvote
J1000
By J1000 (Jul 31, 2012)

I'm not a fan of the colors I'm seeing.

4 upvotes
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (Jul 31, 2012)

I suggest a drink of water and a nice lie down :)

12 upvotes
urix
By urix (Jul 31, 2012)

NOKIA PureView fan detected.

1 upvote
Barbu
By Barbu (Jul 31, 2012)

Excellent comeback, mr. Britton! It seems that there are again real people at DPreview. Keep it up!

0 upvotes
Barney Britton
By Barney Britton (Jul 31, 2012)

We're very real. At least I think we are...

6 upvotes
NotSteve
By NotSteve (Jul 31, 2012)

I might be wrong, but it seems like the camera industry has a more reasonable take on patents than the mobile device sector, be it tablets of phones. I'd hate to see the convergence between mobile devices and cameras introduce the egregious level of patent-trolling and lawsuits that is taking place in the mobile phone/tablet sector into camera development.

1 upvote
vlad0
By vlad0 (Jul 31, 2012)

I don't think I would ever buy an P&S again. Its something like the 808+DSLR .. everything in between doesn't make much sense to me.

Nikon D800 + Nokia 808 .. that combo would cover 100% of my needs.

2 upvotes
familyogre
By familyogre (Jul 31, 2012)

That's exactly why i bought an 808, it does have it's faults as a camera but in most situations it does a great job so no need for a point and shoot. For everything else i have my k5.

1 upvote
vlad0
By vlad0 (Jul 31, 2012)

.. works great! I've been on the smartphone+dslr combo since the Nokia N8 came out 2 years ago.

3 upvotes
CameraLabTester
By CameraLabTester (Jul 31, 2012)

The marriage of camera manufacturers and mobile phones are inevitable.

These two separate items sell on their own right, and combining them only increases the desirability of the product.

The camera features of this gadget is good, but the Nokia phone interface is something a lot of disappointed and badly burned previous users would recall as a painful memory.

Put this camera on an iPhone, HTC or Samsung and it will shine. Nokia has to clean up it's interface first.

.

2 upvotes
vlad0
By vlad0 (Jul 31, 2012)

The UX in Symbian 10.1 is quite good, and with the available hardware, the 808 runs just fine.. try one, you will see for yourself :)

1 upvote
sir_bazz
By sir_bazz (Jul 31, 2012)

Thats kinda like comparing the latest Android to an early version of RedHat. The 808 uses Nokia Belle as the OS which is a world away from the Symbian OS that was used on the N97.

Infact the Nokia Belle interface is very Android like.

1 upvote
Schwermetall
By Schwermetall (Jul 31, 2012)

@ sir_bazz:
You are right Nokia Belle and Android are very similar but the problem is that the most app developers are leaving Symbian.

0 upvotes
Menneisyys
By Menneisyys (Jul 31, 2012)

"You are right Nokia Belle and Android are very similar but the problem is that the most app developers are leaving Symbian."

Get an iPad (or an Android tablet) and you have the best of both worlds. (Who would browse the Web when there's - even compared to the best Android phones / the iPhone 4s) a much superior tablet hardware (much higher-resolution, eye-pleasing etc. - think of the Retina-screened iPad 3)?

0 upvotes
sir_bazz
By sir_bazz (Jul 31, 2012)

@Schwermetall

Yup I agree with that and it may well be in issue for some potential buyers however, thats a much different issue to someone saying that the Nokia interface needs to be cleaned up.

0 upvotes
Total comments: 210
12