It´s a phone, not camera. Period.

Started Jan 3, 2013 | User reviews
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
Lupti
Lupti Senior Member • Posts: 1,577
It´s a phone, not camera. Period.

After all the fuss about the Nokia 808 and it´s camera I tried it for some days. I always had doubts that all the praise was realistic but I wanted to give it a chance. But now I have to say my doubts were right.

First of all, it´s a phone with a camera, not vice-versa. And for a phone it´s pretty average - which also has some disadvantages when using it´s camera. At first there is the low-resolution screen of just 640x360 pixels which gives a mere pixel-count of approx 230.000. Cheaper real cameras have screens with 4-5x times of this resolution.
Then this device is just clunky, not good to hold and IMHO ugly - compared to the Nokia N8 which was made of aluminium and felt pretty solid(and had some style) this is just a chunky piece of plastic.

The camera UI just looks poor. Not nice to use. I could forgive that if the results were good - but they aren´t. The 41MP aren´t good, too soft and even little shake is visible. The 8MP pics are ok and the high-ISO performance may be better than these of some cameras but that can´t compensate the other disadvantages. And overall the images are nothing a decent P&S for 200-300 bucks can shoot.
There is no stabilisation at all and you can´t control aperture or shutter. The aperture is fixed with it´s value of F2.4.

Movies are also shaky, the digital image stabilisation produces a strange jumpy image(like on N8) but no stabilised image. Audio sounds a bit muffled, it was praised for the good audio quality but there are some clanking sounds due to high compression in some situations. It may stand loud surroundings without distortion but a problem is that handling causes disturbing noises as the microphones are too sensitive to pick that up.
Sharpness is ok but nothing to rave about.

As a phone it´s just average. It´s not only to the outdated OS of Symbian, but other oddities. For unknown reason I wasn´t able to receive SMS, only after reboot(calling was possible). You need a microSIM - I really don´t know why this chunky ugly phone needs a microSIM slot when even smaller ones can handle a normal sized SIM.

My conclusion is that I don´t recommend this thing. Get a cheap Android phone and a decent P&S for the same price and better results for both. All this fuss about "end of compact cameras because you have your phone every time with you blabla" is just nonsense. The 808 isn´t for serious photographers and for snapshots like your drunken friends on a Facebook party even cheaper phones work.

Nokia 808 Pureview
4 screen • 41 megapixels (rear)
Lupti's score
1.5
Average community score
4.3
NishanthN35 New Member • Posts: 2
Re: It´s a phone, not camera. Period.

Lupti wrote:

After all the fuss about the Nokia 808 and it´s camera I tried it for some days. I always had doubts that all the praise was realistic but I wanted to give it a chance. But now I have to say my doubts were right.

First of all, it´s a phone with a camera, not vice-versa. And for a phone it´s pretty average - which also has some disadvantages when using it´s camera. At first there is the low-resolution screen of just 640x360 pixels which gives a mere pixel-count of approx 230.000. Cheaper real cameras have screens with 4-5x times of this resolution.
Then this device is just clunky, not good to hold and IMHO ugly - compared to the Nokia N8 which was made of aluminium and felt pretty solid(and had some style) this is just a chunky piece of plastic.

The camera UI just looks poor. Not nice to use. I could forgive that if the results were good - but they aren´t. The 41MP aren´t good, too soft and even little shake is visible. The 8MP pics are ok and the high-ISO performance may be better than these of some cameras but that can´t compensate the other disadvantages. And overall the images are nothing a decent P&S for 200-300 bucks can shoot.
There is no stabilisation at all and you can´t control aperture or shutter. The aperture is fixed with it´s value of F2.4.

Movies are also shaky, the digital image stabilisation produces a strange jumpy image(like on N8) but no stabilised image. Audio sounds a bit muffled, it was praised for the good audio quality but there are some clanking sounds due to high compression in some situations. It may stand loud surroundings without distortion but a problem is that handling causes disturbing noises as the microphones are too sensitive to pick that up.
Sharpness is ok but nothing to rave about.

As a phone it´s just average. It´s not only to the outdated OS of Symbian, but other oddities. For unknown reason I wasn´t able to receive SMS, only after reboot(calling was possible). You need a microSIM - I really don´t know why this chunky ugly phone needs a microSIM slot when even smaller ones can handle a normal sized SIM.

My conclusion is that I don´t recommend this thing. Get a cheap Android phone and a decent P&S for the same price and better results for both. All this fuss about "end of compact cameras because you have your phone every time with you blabla" is just nonsense. The 808 isn´t for serious photographers and for snapshots like your drunken friends on a Facebook party even cheaper phones work.

I'm sure you would have reviewed how a iPhone requires a normal SIM in other forums by now.

 NishanthN35's gear list:NishanthN35's gear list
Nikon D5200 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR II 808
bigley Ling Veteran Member • Posts: 3,231
Re: It´s a phone, not camera. Period.
1

Lupti wrote:

...

First of all, it´s a phone with a camera, not vice-versa. And for a phone it´s pretty average - which also has some disadvantages when using it´s camera. At first there is the low-resolution screen of just 640x360 pixels which gives a mere pixel-count of approx 230.000. Cheaper real cameras have screens with 4-5x times of this resolution.

That resolution was acceptable when the device first was released. Although the pixel resolution may be low, the bright RGB laid out AMOLED display was very easy to ready outdoors in direct sunlight.

Then this device is just clunky, not good to hold and IMHO ugly - compared to the Nokia N8 which was made of aluminium and felt pretty solid(and had some style) this is just a chunky piece of plastic

I have both the N8 and the 808, and personally both are not that ergonomic when they are used as a camera. That being said, phones were never meant to compete with the liked of a dedicate digicam which tend to have a purpose designed camera grip.

The camera UI just looks poor. Not nice to use. I could forgive that if the results were good - but they aren´t. The 41MP aren´t good, too soft and even little shake is visible. The 8MP pics are ok and the high-ISO performance may be better than these of some cameras but that can´t compensate the other disadvantages. And overall the images are nothing a decent P&S for 200-300 bucks can shoot.
There is no stabilisation at all and you can´t control aperture or shutter. The aperture is fixed with it´s value of F2.4.

I use a 3rd party app called Camera Pro. the UI seems to be better there, although for pureview capture with lossless zoom, the default camera UI is not that bad.

If you are into photography, you will know that the higher the resolution, there is need for higher shutter speeds. This applies not only to smartphone cameras but also to larger digicams like DSLRs and ILCs.

Although the Aperture is fixed and there is no image stabilization, one can just increase the ISO manually to attain a higher shutter speed, which is turn will reduce camera shake.

Movies are also shaky, the digital image stabilisation produces a strange jumpy image(like on N8) but no stabilised image. Audio sounds a bit muffled, it was praised for the good audio quality but there are some clanking sounds due to high compression in some situations. It may stand loud surroundings without distortion but a problem is that handling causes disturbing noises as the microphones are too sensitive to pick that up.
Sharpness is ok but nothing to rave about.

Strange you are having issues with muffled audio recording. My 808 records sound with amazing fidelity. I bet Steve Litchfield can vouch for me on this.

As a phone it´s just average. It´s not only to the outdated OS of Symbian, but other oddities. For unknown reason I wasn´t able to receive SMS, only after reboot(calling was possible). You need a microSIM - I really don´t know why this chunky ugly phone needs a microSIM slot when even smaller ones can handle a normal sized SIM.

When the 808 was released micro SIM was becoming the standard for that time, hence it was logical to use micoSIM and not a full sized SIM

My conclusion is that I don´t recommend this thing. Get a cheap Android phone and a decent P&S for the same price and better results for both. All this fuss about "end of compact cameras because you have your phone every time with you blabla" is just nonsense. The 808 isn´t for serious photographers and for snapshots like your drunken friends on a Facebook party even cheaper phones work.

The 808 is a niche product and will always be that way. It may not be the best smartphone camera out there, but it certainly is not the worst. The phone OS is obsolete, and those considering to purchase a second hand 808 will already know this. The 808 sets a milestone in history, and although the camera may have limitations, the image quality can be rewarding when you get the settings right. The 808 is still the smallest, more portable 41MP camera that is pocket able.

Van Nostrand Junior Member • Posts: 27
Re: It´s a phone, not camera. Period.
1

Lupti wrote:

After all the fuss about the Nokia 808 and it´s camera I tried it for some days. I always had doubts that all the praise was realistic but I wanted to give it a chance. But now I have to say my doubts were right.

All the fuss about the 808 is the capability of the sensor in how much detail it can capture..............not an easy thing to notice for most casual observers just doing very basic observing with some random shots.

The camera UI just looks poor. Not nice to use. I could forgive that if the results were good - but they aren´t. The 41MP aren´t good, too soft and even little shake is visible. The 8MP pics are ok and the high-ISO performance may be better than these of some cameras but that can´t compensate the other disadvantages. And overall the images are nothing a decent P&S for 200-300 bucks can shoot.

Visible shake comes from a moving subject or a shaky hand or both, not inherently from any model of camera.

The 808 does not particularly have great high iso performance.......no phone camera does.

In terms of detail, while Pixel peeping I would say the 808 demonstrates it has more detail than the overwhelming majority of 200-300 . I would bet, every single one of them.

There is no stabilisation at all and you can´t control aperture or shutter. The aperture is fixed with it´s value of F2.4.

All phone cameras ever made, you cannot control the aperature, and the 808 has a more extended shutter than FLAGSHIP google phones like the Nexus 6p and 5x........and is capable of FAR superior night shot landscapes.........far superior than most of today's flagships because of the extended shutter than base iso noise.

Audio sounds a bit muffled, it was praised for the good audio quality but there are some clanking sounds due to high compression in some situations. It may stand loud surroundings without distortion but a problem is that handling causes disturbing noises as the microphones are too sensitive to pick that up.

The Nokia 808 audio capture is probably better than any phone made to date.

My conclusion is that I don´t recommend this thing. Get a cheap Android phone and a decent P&S for the same price and better results for both. All this fuss about "end of compact cameras because you have your phone every time with you blabla" is just nonsense.

I personally don't recommend it because, what it is good at, most people don't really care much about (larger sensor) . And outside of that.........it is ancient and cumbersome. While the phone features are fine for a lo tot of people, not for the overwhelming majority.

Having extensively used an 808 for the camera alone. , I have learned that it takes a lots of effort and figuring out settings to get desired results. There are known tricks in terms of focus to dial in and can be finicky and shooting fixed infinity helps a lot ...a setting most users would never know it can do.

The 808 isn´t for serious photographers and for snapshots like your drunken friends on a Facebook party even cheaper phones work.

Of all phones made to date, in some conditions , I would absolutely choose the 808.........many conditions like low light moving subjects I would choose some other phone.

A620er
A620er Senior Member • Posts: 1,238
Re: It´s a phone, not camera. Period.
1

Lupti wrote:

First of all, it´s a phone with a camera, not vice-versa. And for a phone it´s pretty average - which also has some disadvantages when using it´s camera.

I'm not commenting on this particular device but SmartPhones in general.

First off, yes it's not a camera but neither is it a phone. It's a SmartPhone. which contains both a phone and a camera

In case you're thinking I'm being pedantic about the name, I'm not. I believe that one of the reasons there are endless threads & debates like this is partly down to the SmartPhone name which has largely been reduced to a "phone" in most speech & text & so (not surprisingly) people see it as a phone first & everything else second (& third & fourth etc).

Yet how many phone calls are made on them compared to other uses. Most devices will take far, far more photos than make phone calls yet people still call it a phone AND MORE IMPORTANTLY in many cases (as your post demonstrates) will view it as a phone in order to disparage it

Let's make up a more accurate title - Interactive Technical Device (ITD for short). This ITD is multi-functional and in order of number of features used by me it:

  1. Enables internet browsing
  2. Texts
  3. Connects to various social media
  4. Allows internet messaging
  5. Stores photos
  6. Takes photographs
  7. Shares photos
  8. Email
  9. Interactive maps
  10. GPS
  11. Saves walking & cycling routes (planning) & tracks (actual)
  12. Following planned routes outdoors
  13. Playing music
  14. Phone calls

And I'm sure most people do a lot more than I do with their ITD's

Am I suggesting that these ITDs take as a good a picture as a dedicated camera? - in most cases no, but the top end of the ITDs compare very well with the IQ of the less than 1" compact cameras. Of course these compacts often have far more features, most importantly the optical zoom and certainly when you move up to a 1" sensor & above then the IQ of the dedicated camera is way ahead of the ITD, as are the features

But factor in a "why would you carry 2 devices when 1 will do" and if the IQ is acceptable to the user then the ITD contains a good enough camera

It's a portable electronic device which contains both a phone and a camera

Paul

 A620er's gear list:A620er's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sony E 55-210mm F4.5-6.3 OSS Sony E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS Samsung Galaxy S7 edge
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads