Advertisements
Advertisements

AAS Big Shootout: Nokia 808 PureView vs HTC One vs Nokia Lumia 920 vs Nokia n95

| March 15, 2013 | 107 Replies

Screen Shot 2013-03-15 at 13.01.31Quick heads up (tied up atm) on this big shootout between the big photography guns from Nokia (past and present) against the HTC One.

Advertisements

http://www.allaboutsymbian.com/features/item/17055_The_big_shootout_Nokia_808_vs_.php

Cheers stylinred for the tip

 

Advertisements

Category: Nokia, Windows Phone

About the Author ()

Hey, thanks for reading my post. My name is Jay and I'm a medical student at the University of Manchester. When I can, I blog here at mynokiablog.com and tweet now and again @jaymontano. We also have a twitter and facebook accounts @mynokiablog and  Facebook.com/mynokiablog. Check out the tips, guides and rules for commenting >>click<< Contact us at tips(@)mynokiablog.com or email me directly on jay[at]mynokiablog.com
  • http://carman58.hubpages.com/ stephenquin58

    Read it earlier and amazed how badly the 920 did !!

    • dss

      Its average.. no surprises there. 1/3″ sensor, wide optics, compromised jpeg processing.. you can’t really expect more than that.

    • stylinred

      feel the same way pretty disappointed as i thought i got my father an adequate shooter

  • AreOut

    WP8 flagship from 2013 got trounced by Symbian flagship from 2007 :D

    • dss

      Well… yes, the N95 and the ONE are pretty much on the same level. 2.2 microns vs. 2.0 microns ..

      The N95 still has 1Mpix extra tho :)

    • graider

      where? i haven’t seen one where the 920 beat the htc one camera. in fact, i think the 920 camera is one of the worse. color produced by the 920 are way off.

      to other who keep bragging about 808 this and that. do you realize how thick and ugly the 808 is. it has a huge hump on the back (looks like a point and shoot camera than a phone). what is the point of buying the 808. if you want camera, buy a 400 bucks canon point and shoot that would just wipe the floor with the 808 and the canon will be just as small as the 808. just because the 808 is label as a phone doesn’t mean anyone would buy it as a phone (sell number speak the truth). where is Nokia now btw if this 808 is so good?

      let’s get real. the 808 is nothing more than a compact camera with some phone functionality. that’s how I see it. where as the htc one, slick, think, light, great android OS, beautiful to look at, nice loud speaker, lot of storage, list go on……

      • blah

        You are full of crap. You have no idea how big 808 really is and what it can do. In fact, you couldn’t name a single thing this htc one can do as smartphone which 808 can’t.

  • muhs

    its weird cuz most blogs (and also that’s what i see) find that the 920 is better than the one with quite a margin

  • مثقف

    مقارنات موقع سمبيان تويت فاشــلة جدا و تعتمد على أمور فارطــة

  • Jyrki Sukula ottaa voiton Ramskista

    Nice comparison.

    It’s quite obvious that in the Symbian days almost everything Nokia had was the camera. They really pushed it and it shows. In the results and in the sales in 2010.

    In macro shots 808 is not that great compared to the other phones but it’s pretty good.

    • Tetlee

      Not like you to find and focus on the negatives of both Symbian and the 808, how unusual.

      Steve is great with his comparisons, love the way he throws even some older camera phones into his tests for interest, and very much tries to include any requested devices.

      • Jyrki Sukula ottaa voiton Ramskista

        Focus on negatives?

        What did I say?

        I said that Nokia really pushed the camera back in the Symbian days. How is that negative?

        I also said that 808 is pretty good on the macro shot. It’s definitely not as good as it’s normally on the non macro shots. For obvious reasons. Now how is that negative?

        How about being objective for a change?

  • swain

    Nice article.
    Another win for the greatest(and last) Symbian.
    It’s sad to see 920 coming last(humiliating itself in front of HTC One) but at the same time glad to see a Symbian from 2007 giving a hard time to HTC flagship of 2013.
    Indeed as Jay said earlier, HTC cameras are only better to be compared with potatoes. :)
    I don’t see a point in comparing the cameras of HTC One or Lumia 920 with 808/N8 or any other flagships anymore. It just looks like humiliating the One and 920 as both are proved to be incompetent.
    Let’s hold back this kind of comparisons until we have Nokia EOS or Galaxy S4 or next iPhone.
    Till then 808 is our king.

    • Grendell

      All hail!

  • dss

    The phase 1 system is so far ahead of the competition… people still don’t realize how big of an innovation it really is.

    • Shaun

      It’s just such a pity the 808 is Symbian instead of Harmattan.

      • dss

        It think it would have taken longer to develop the system for Linux.. I am sure they were plans to do so, but not in the same time frame. There is a reason why they chose Symbian.. their best camera work was done on that platform.

        • Jyrki Sukula ottaa voiton Ramskista

          There sure are some reasons for that.

          It took 5 years to get the PureView done for Symbian.

          Symbian is definitely a hard platform to develop for. 5 years! It took Apple 5 years to develop the iPhone and just look at the difference! The other one is a camera module for Symbian and the one is top selling movile platform!

          It’s definitely slow to develop for Symbian.

          • dss

            You could satisfy your troll needs here as well:

            http://forum.pureviewclub.com/index.php/topic,426.0.html

            • Jyrki Sukula ottaa voiton Ramskista

              That’s one pretty flawed post.

              That author doesn’t have even the basic knowledge about optimizing mobile phones.

              “Remember we are looking here to at least one inch of added length/width and half inch of thickness at the minimum”

              half inch, really? Added? Didn’t that guy ever check how 808 was built and how it’s really wasting some space?

              “holding that much weight near your ear for a half an hour”

              That guy never lived in the landline era? 250g was not that much then. I’m not saying that 250g is not much. Just that the problems is elsewhere than holding the device on you ear.

              “phone with PureView tech onboard is all well and nice but you are looking here to at least four digits of any major currency”

              Just guessing. No proof.

              “here you are talking about at least 3000 mAh battery and this is how 808 looks with it :”

              How much did HTC One have? Not much less and it’s not nearly that thick. Almost half of it.

              • AreOut

                it’s funny how much time you have for trolling, why don’t you show us some pictures from “your” 808 at last? ;)

                • Jyrki Sukula ottaa voiton Ramskista

                  I’m not talking about my device but only about the quality of the 808 vs. 4S in certain situations.

                  I’ll post a picture taken with 4S after RVM (or you perhaps) post a comparable one taken with the 808.

                  Why I don’t take that picture with my 808? Simple. Because you would start claiming that I just can’t use the device because 808 will lose so badly.

                  Comparable picture is for example one taken from a 1 euro coin or something similar most people have access to.

                  Unfortunately it seems that RVM doesn’t dare to take the picture.

                  • AreOut

                    I won’t say anything just post some picture from 808 you claim to have :)

                    • Jyrki Sukula ottaa voiton Ramskista

                      I’m not talking about my device but only about the quality of the 808 vs. 4S in certain situations.

                    • AreOut

                      well if you have both devices as you claim just give us comparative shot to show us 4S advantage

                    • Jyrki Sukula ottaa voiton Ramskista

                      I would like to know what settings RVM used in his shot because I have not found a way to bring 808 that close to the object. And according to Nokia it shouldn’t be possible.

                      So, I guess he was using additional optics with his picture of the coin.

                    • AreOut

                      I don’t know what RVM you are talking about, if you have those two devices as you claim just do a comparative shot and post it here.

          • burningBit

            Nokia had 2 full years to develop PureView Pro for WP, furthermore they already had the necessary hardware and software from developing it in Symbian. Yet there’s not even a sound about it and Nokia is instead trying its best to pretend 808 doesn’t exist to hide its shame in its Lumia series. Says a lot about how easy it is to develop on WP, doesn’t it?

            • Jyrki Sukula ottaa voiton Ramskista

              Actually that says nothing about how easy it’s to develop it for WP.

              Did it ever occur to you that maybe 808′s camera was not making that much sales on 808 and it wouldn’t make that much sales with WP either? Or with Android.

              Nokia is trying to sell mobile phones. Not trying to win specs race for fans.

              • burningBit

                You were discussing about how slow it was to develop. Why are you suddenly changing the topic to not having enough market value instead?

                That said, given the rave reviews and responses to PureView Pro, why wouldn’t Nokia want to bring it to Lumia asap? It also gives Nokia another USP for its phones. They would have to be completely insane to do the opposite. So until Catwalk or EOS arrives (with PureView Pro and not some other so-called “PureView”), I can only assume that Nokia is having a hard time developing PureView Pro for WP.

                No one was talking about specs, either, but simply about bringing innovations to phones. As mentioned before about a million times, 808′s camera was never about the 41mp, but rather the way the oversampling technology uses it. Specs was never involved in the discussion.

                • dss

                  It makes absolutely no sense at all. If any other company had this kind of technology in mass production, they will make a killing…

                  Nokia is sitting on a golden egg, when they don’t have the luxury to do so.

                  • burningBit

                    Exactly! It’s totally illogical to do otherwise, which our friend from another planet apparently thinks.

                • Jyrki Sukula ottaa voiton Ramskista

                  It was never about the 41MP? Really?

                  Are you suggesting that 808′s oversampling could really work that well without the 41MP? No?

                  Then it’s all about the 41MP and how you use them.

                  And yes, Nokia should be able to sell those phones. What makes you sure that 41MP with PV would really be the killer feature?

                  It’s all about the specs in 808.

                  • burningBit

                    You’re still not answering the question. I’ll just remind you, I was talking about how slow it was to develop in WP, and you countered by saying PureView Pro is not well received, which was obviously not true. Still, I’ll indulge your need for attention in case others look at your posts and become misinformed.

                    Yes, 808 worked so well partly because of the 41mp, simply because of their PureView Pro technology that oversamples the pixels to get a superpixel. So obviously, the greater the pixel count, the better the quality of the images. But it doesn’t mean it has to be 41mp. Even 21 (which is WP’s limit btw) is good enough for a 6:1 3mp or a 4:1 5mp photo. So yes, PureView Pro could definitely work even without 41mp.

                    Just look at 920. Nokia has been so aggressively advertising its PureView OIS as its killer feature. What makes you think PureView Pro would be otherwise? Seriously, it’s hard to comprehend the logic of your thinking. Even absurdity should have its limits.

                    Indeed, 808 was the highest speced Symbian phone in the market. But compare it with just any other phone out there, it’s right at the bottom, with the exception being its 41mp. If you had any basic knowledge of the specs from other manufacturers, you would not be throwing the specs word out so blatantly for a counter argument, because that is the weakness of Symbian phones, not its strength.

                    • Jyrki Sukula ottaa voiton Ramskista

                      808 was a one trick pony. One trick pony racing with the specs.

                      People here are complaining that 808′s PV was not advertised enough. Now you are saying it was well received. Really?

                      21MP would be racing with the specs. Actually the top phones currently have 8MP. Can you make PV Pro to work with 8MP?

                      I guess you can, but then again, would you like to have those 2MP or 1MP shots?

                      It’s about the specs what it comes to PureView. 808 was a one trick pony, but then again, it was pretty much just a test of how much people wanted to buy 41MP. Not a test of how much people wanted that 41MP but how much they wanted to buy it.

                    • burningBit

                      Wow, it’s amazing how the topic even diverged so far. What happened to developing PureView Pro on WP??? All I see are attempts to keep changing the topic to something else.

                      One trick pony? Maybe. But it was also the epitome and swan’s song of Symbian. It was the best Symbian phone that Nokia could offer to its fans and supporters.

                      Did I say well received? Nope, I said rave reviews and responses. Even with Nokia doing almost nothing to advertise the 808′s PureView Pro, it was still widely praised by every tech review, even by dpreview (not a phone review, but a digital camera review website).

                      Yes, I mentioned 21mp, because that’s simply the upper limit of WP. Again, let me re-emphasize that it’s not the number of pixels, but what you do with it. Do you need a lot of pixels to do oversampling? Of course the more the better. But even a basic 2:1 4mp picture from an 8mp camera would be appreciated by normal users. Yet, it appears Nokia wasn’t able to develop it for WP even after these 2 years.

                    • Jyrki Sukula ottaa voiton Ramskista

                      I pretty much talked about the development for WP. If 41MP PV doesn’t sell well enough, Nokia is not going to make one before it it’s possible that it would sell well enough.

                      I’m pretty sure Nokia would do it if it was really such an important feature. They could do the 8MP PV (resultin 4MP or 2MP images) even with software if they really wanted to.

                      Bloggers and tech press doesn’t decide how well phones sell. Consumers do.

                      Tech press hated iPhone 5 (and pretty much 4S) and it sold very well in Q4 2012.

                    • burningBit

                      So based on your theory, it means that there would be no PureView Pro developed for Lumia in the future since its sales was not good, am I right? And since 808 is the only device with PureView Pro, we can also safely assume that this technology is dead.

                      Meaning if there is indeed no PureView Pro for future devices, then fine, you were right all along. But if it turns out PureView Pro is released in future models, then it would prove that my theory was right.

                    • Jyrki Sukula ottaa voiton Ramskista

                      Actually yes and no.

                      It may be that Nokia just need to make the camera thinner and the phone without the hump. It’s possible, actually.

                      But maybe that takes some serious time.

                    • burningBit

                      But even if Nokia made the camera lens thinner and without the hump, what difference would it make? Based on the poor sales of 808, it would be pointless to develop PureView Pro for WP anyway, isn’t it?

                    • Jyrki Sukula ottaa voiton Ramskista

                      It would improve the camera, but would it be the killer feature?

                      Probably no.

                      Anyway, improvements are welcome if they don’t create other problems like the hump.

                    • burningBit

                      Yup, and so, you too agree that such improvements are welcomed but they would not be a killer feature. Thus it would be logical for Nokia to create a USP such as PureView Pro (808) and OIS (920) to differentiate their phones’ cameras from the others. So it leads back to the original topic of Nokia requiring a lot of time to develop PureView Pro for WP.

                    • Jyrki Sukula ottaa voiton Ramskista

                      Any improvement is welcome.

                      Maybe Nokia is working hard to be able to implement PV tech on Lumia, but doing it without the hump takes time.

                      They just can’t make the device less desirable.

                    • burningBit

                      Ahhhh I see! It’s not about the development time, but rather about the aesthetics of the phone. If you had just stated this point from the start instead comparing development time for different OSes, then we wouldn’t have made such a huge detour to finally arrive at this conclusion.

                    • Jyrki Sukula ottaa voiton Ramskista

                      Nokia probably has to improve the physical size of the camera. I don’t believe WP itself prevents oversampling from working.

                      The biggest reason for not implementing 808′s camera sensor and PV on a Lumia is probably the probable impact on sales.

                    • burningBit

                      Fine, I can accept that the physical dimensions might be a limiting factor for now.

                      But again, you mentioned that the reason for not implementing PureView Pro on Lumia is because it would result in probable impact of sales, which I’m assuming should be low sales based on the context. So doesn’t it mean Nokia would not bother to develop PureView Pro for WP in the first place, since it would not be worth the time and effort.

                      So is the phone aesthetics the main reason, the development time and effort to bring it over to WP, or is it the poor sales of 808?

                    • Jyrki Sukula ottaa voiton Ramskista

                      The hump would probably have an impact on the sales.

                      Better camera would probably boost the sales, but not as much as the hump and the cost of the bigger sensor would take away.

                      The cost of the sensor? There are multiple factors on this matter.

                    • burningBit

                      Ahhh, then you should have said there were multiple factors involved which led to the slow development of PureView Pro in WP, instead of simply claiming the main reason being the poor sales of 808.

                    • Jyrki Sukula ottaa voiton Ramskista

                      It’s probable that 808 just proved Nokia that 41MP was not a killer feature making even a Symbian phone to sell in huge volumes.

                      I’ll quote myself: “Did it ever occur to you that maybe 808′s camera was not making that much sales on 808 and it wouldn’t make that much sales with WP either? Or with Android.”

                      Nokia probably could make it for WP if they really wanted to.

                      But why would they?

                    • burningBit

                      Yup, and so I too quote myself

                      “So based on your theory, it means that there would be no PureView Pro developed for Lumia in the future since its sales was not good, am I right? And since 808 is the only device with PureView Pro, we can also safely assume that this technology is dead.

                      Meaning if there is indeed no PureView Pro for future devices, then fine, you were right all along. But if it turns out PureView Pro is released in future models, then it would prove that my theory was right.”

                      Which you then answered giving other factors as reasons instead.

                    • Jyrki Sukula ottaa voiton Ramskista

                      You were saying that there would not be PV Pro in future.

                      I gave several reasons why Nokia has not been making one now.

                      There may be 41MP PV Pro for Lumia if Nokia manages to overcome the problems 808′s PV had impacting the sales.

                      Apparently 808′s 41MP PV was not mature enough for mobile phones intended for mass markets. This may change in the future, but that technology seen in 808 was not just good enough.

                      I could list several issues 808 has with it, but I guess the most important ones were already listed.

                    • burningBit

                      No, it was simply based on what I inferred from your claims on poor sales. So i requote myself:

                      “Ahhh, then you should have said there were multiple factors involved which led to the slow development of PureView Pro in WP, instead of simply claiming the main reason being the poor sales of 808.”

                      So now on what you’re saying, it’s not actually the poor sales from 808 that’s delaying developing PureView Pro on WP, but rather the problems associated with it, such as hump and lens size and whatsoever other problems with bringing it over to WP.

                    • Jyrki Sukula ottaa voiton Ramskista

                      41MP PV implemented like it was in 808 didn’t apparently result enough sales.

                      That’s why Nokia has to enhance the technology before it’s worth bringing for WP.

                    • burningBit

                      You keep talking about sales, but can you use sales as a yardstick when Nokia hardly advertise 808 at all as compared with 920? It’s simply too weak an argument to even suggest that was the reason Nokia is delaying bringing PureView Pro over to WP.

                      Of course there’s always room for improvement, but if it’s going to take Nokia more than another 2 years to do so, then just give it to me the way it is now. It’s already several times more impressive than anything I’ve seen on phones so far.

                    • Jyrki Sukula ottaa voiton Ramskista

                      Believe what you want, but probably 808 proved to Nokia that they need to improve that tech before bringing it to WP.

                    • burningBit

                      I beg your pardon? Weren’t you the one who said 808 wasn’t advertised enough? This is a fact, not a belief. So given such unfair treatment between products, how could you even use sales as a yardstick??

                      So according to you, this would mean that it’ll be a looooong time before Nokia could actually bring PureView Pro to WP.

                    • Jyrki Sukula ottaa voiton Ramskista

                      I don’t think they had to little advertising on 808. Considering what kind of product it was.

                      Nokia will probably bring 41MP PV to Lumia when they have figured out the flaws that camera and tech had in 808.

                      It may be sooner on later.

                      Selling the same tech would not be smart. There are just too many drawbacks. Size, performance, hump, lag, cost. At least most of those should be resolved.

                    • burningBit

                      You keep changing your stand, so which is it? Advertised too little or adequately? Brought over to WP soon or much later? Flaws in PureView Pro or flaws in bringing it to WP? So there’s the issues with size, performance, hump, lag, cost when it has to be developed in WP.

                    • Jyrki Sukula ottaa voiton Ramskista

                      41MP PV on 808 had several issues.

                      Nokia just needs to figure them out before bringing it to WP.

                      808 made it probably clear to Nokia, that 41MP PV camera alone is not a killer feature resulting with massive amounts of sales so there is no real hurry for rushing it for Lumia.

                      I don’t really know what’s the problem for you? They need to improve it before bringing it to WP. With 41 or 21 MP that is. It’s not really the main issue.

                    • burningBit

                      Issues issues, what are the issues???The only stuff you mentioned was the hump and lens size and cost.

                      Now you say there are other issues. What are they really?

                      Again with the sales. So when you have a product that was not advertised compared with another that was heavily advertised and not doing well, it means it’s not good enough. Really? Is that your rationale?

                      You said improvements, yup I agreed with that. So time needs to be taken for improvements, yes? So we’ll need to wait long before PureView Pro can be developed on WP, yes? Please don’t tell me otherwise and make another detour. You’re just repeating the same few points over and over again without actually making a solid argument.

                    • Jyrki Sukula ottaa voiton Ramskista

                      I have said that 808′s PV had more issues I have not even mentioned here because they are not tho most important ones. But if you want me to name just one more, it’s the lag when you zoom into a picture with native resolution and scroll around. It should work smoother on WP so that people wouldn’t say that it lags. But that’s not a major issue. Just something Nokia should work on in the future. And it may happen because of the HW implementation 808 has.

                      Hump, size and cost are the most important issues 808 has. When Nokia resolves those, they could bring 41MP PV for WP. That may happen very soon, but if they have problems with those issues, then it may take even more time.

                    • burningBit

                      Great! So now we finally know it’s not about the poor sales issue, but rather the issues in the tech itself! Good to finally clarify that!

                      Then you should have just said that from the start, instead of relentlessly claiming “poor sales” as a pathetic excuse for not developing PureView Pro on WP in the first place.

                    • Jyrki Sukula ottaa voiton Ramskista

                      Sales are one issue.

                      If 41MP PV would have resulted with more sales than they had with 808, they would surely have more interest bringing all that for WP.

                    • burningBit

                      If is a very strong word. If 808 had 1/2 the advertising 920 did, it would be selling like hotcakes. Then Nokia would be really keen about developing it for WP. Yup, “If”…

                    • Jyrki Sukula ottaa voiton Ramskista

                      Probably not because it has Symbian and Symbian has no apps and not so much applications.

                      It’s also not so nice to use as iOS or Android. Most people looked to buy iOS or Android phones.

                      808 probably pretty much ceased to sell after the launch. At least in Finland the sales have been extremely low.

                      At least 808 proved that 41MP PV was not a killer feature.

                    • burningBit

                      You gave a hypothetical statement, so I replied with a hypothetical answer. Was it that hard to comprehend?

                      Ok, so now you claim it’s the OS affecting the sales. Again, let me reiterate: Is this a fair yardstick? Symbian was EOLed by Nokia and had no advertisement. Thus resulting in the poor sales. So how can you even use this as a reason? I’ve already said this many times: This is TOO WEAK an argument to claim that it was the main reason for not developing PureView Pro on WP.

                    • Jyrki Sukula ottaa voiton Ramskista

                      Let’s say that Nokia has probably more important improvements for WP. It’s smart to focus on the most important issues and leave less important features like 41MP PV out especially if they make the phone thicker.

                    • burningBit

                      Right… so much for all that unfounded bullcrap about poor Symbian sales affecting the slow development of PV Pro on WP…

  • Grendell

    Still comparisons like these are pretty good for those who appreciate a little historical perspective. Its an interesting battle between camera leaning towards physics and cameras leaning more on software.

    • dss

      As shown by Nokia, there must be a good synergy between hardware and software for the camera system to deliver good results. The 808′s module won’t be able to shine without the software that allows for real time oversampling, perfect synchronization for the Xenon flash, direct control over the ND filter, and cropping (zooming) in real time.

      • Jyrki Sukula ottaa voiton Ramskista

        808 can’t really and truly shine without manual settings for ISO, exposure time and resolution.

        Wait! There is no setting for the exposure time!

        • AreOut

          it’s funny how much time you have for trolling, why don’t you show us some pictures from “your” 808 at last? ;)

          • Jyrki Sukula ottaa voiton Ramskista

            I’m not talking about my device but only about the quality of the 808 vs. 4S in certain situations.

            I’ll post a picture taken with 4S after RVM (or you perhaps) post a comparable one taken with the 808.

            Why I don’t take that picture with my 808? Simple. Because you would start claiming that I just can’t use the device because 808 will lose so badly.

            Comparable picture is for example one taken from a 1 euro coin or something similar most people have access to.

            Unfortunately it seems that RVM doesn’t dare to take the picture.

            • AreOut

              trolling is pointless at times eh :D

              • Jyrki Sukula ottaa voiton Ramskista

                808 can’t really and truly shine without manual settings for ISO, exposure time and resolution.

                Wait! There is no setting for the exposure time!

                • swain

                  I have seen few of your comments. Honestly I feel, you have never used a 808. Enjoy your exposure time setting in whatever device you own and have fun with your inferior pictures.
                  We are pretty happy with the crystal clear photos taken by 808. We are happy as long as the phone can take nice and clear picture without bothering about the manual exposure time setting.

                  • Jyrki Sukula ottaa voiton Ramskista

                    I have one. Sorry.

                    That’s why I know what it’s missing. Apparently most of the Nokia fans praising the device either don’t have it or they use it not so much.

                    • AreOut

                      If you had it you would prove it when asked.

                    • Jyrki Sukula ottaa voiton Ramskista

                      Here you are.

                      Taken with the Nokia 808.

                      http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/203/nokia808purevieweurocro.jpg/

                      Taken with the Apple iPhone 4S.

                      http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/27/appleiphone4seurocrop.png/

                      Both devices were as close to the coin as possible. Same setup, same lightning, same coin.

                      Nokia 808 was using the default camera application and Apple iPhone 4S was using an app from the App Store.

                      And if you don’t like the quality 808 produced, here is a link you can use for some comparison. I bet the people at that site were able to take a proper picture?

                      http://pureviewclub.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Nokia-808-2-euro-cropped-from-38MP-2-639×635.jpg?139d23

                    • swain

                      Traditional macro shots has never been the strength of 808. You need to keep the device at some distance(say 15 cm) and zoom to get a perfect close-up. Try it once.

                    • Jyrki Sukula ottaa voiton Ramskista

                      That picture was taken just like that. As close as possible and then zoomed.

                      While 808 takes great pictures, it’s just not the best in everything.

                      Just compare the pictures taken by iPhone 4S and 808.

                    • AreOut

                      lol what about EXIFs :) also how come 808 photo comes at 0.65 MP and IP one at 1.65 MP :D

                    • Jyrki Sukula ottaa voiton Ramskista

                      You are all about demands, are you?

                      You wanted the pictures, didn’t you? You never talked about anything else. Now you have the pictures.

                      I guess you would just keep asking for more and more.

                      And the size? That’s because iPhone can get closer to the object. That’s why the image size is bigger. The another difference is that while 808 produces the pictures in jpg format, iPhone makes images in png frmat.

                      Those images are just crops, they were not resized.

                      It’s not my fault if 808 can’t get closer to the object and it can’t produce images in png format. Just blame Nokia for that.

                    • AreOut

                      you didn’t prove it’s pictured by 808&IP, give us original unedited pictures not some crops

                    • Jyrki Sukula ottaa voiton Ramskista

                      There is no way to prove that to you so that you would be satisfied.

                      But hey, I guess you are not trying to claim that the image produced by 808 is the better one. It isn’t.

                      Sorry, 808 just can’t beat it on that.

                      Besides, you can take a better shot if you can. I bet you can’t, for several reasons.

                    • AreOut

                      Yeah I don’t have 1 euro…sod off now troll :D

                    • Jyrki Sukula ottaa voiton Ramskista

                      Just pick any coin. I may be able to match it. Or pick any object roughly as big as that coin.

                      Unfortunately that will not change anything.

                      I bet you just can’t match the picture taken with the iPhone. Not if you use 808 without additional optics.

                      What funny about this is the fact that you didn’t even try to deny that 808 was not the best in this. Not after seeing those pictures.

                    • AreOut

                      I don’t want to discuss unless you prove you have 808 as you claim. You didn’t prove it so…can’t see the point really.

                    • Jyrki Sukula ottaa voiton Ramskista

                      And what would be the proof?

                      You are funny. Fist you ask for something and when you get it, you just want more.

                      Nothing is probably enough for you.

                      If I would post you the original from 808, you would ask for something else. That would be endless. You would be asking for something else.

                      Maybe you could post a picture you have taken with the 808? But no.

                      You really can’t.

                      And the 808 just failed on this task.

                    • AreOut

                      What would be proof? Picture from “your” 808 with a valid EXIF, is it that complicated? I don’t claim anything unusual about 808 like you do so I don’t have to prove anything.

                      http://www.flickr.com/photos/64809958@N03/7689235518/

                      Here is a coin pictured with 808 just for you :)

                    • Jyrki Sukula ottaa voiton Ramskista

                      And if I posted that original here, what would make you really believe it’s from my 808?

                      Or are you saying that you would be satisfied without further requests if I posted only the original picture 808 produced with the original EXIF data from the 808?

                      I bet you are not saying that.

                      About that picture you posted. It’s clearly inferior quality what comes to the level of detail.

                    • AreOut

                      yeah go and picture anything with supposedly yours 808&IP and post it here with EXIFs, it doesn’t have to be the coin, just the same object ;)

                    • Jyrki Sukula ottaa voiton Ramskista

                      I see.

                      And then what?

                      No, you would figure out something else.

                      You just can’t admit that 4S just trashed 808 on this.

                    • AreOut

                      you have just posted 2 random pictures done by incognito device(s), that’s not the proof for anything, that way you can claim that sheephone makes better pictures than Hasselblad :)

                    • Jyrki Sukula ottaa voiton Ramskista

                      Sorry. No.

                      Nothing is enough for you.

                      Clearly you are not trying to claim that the picture taken with 808 is the better one.

                    • AreOut

                      and how do I know its pictured with 808? You just didn’t give us any proof, if you know the meaning of that word ;)

                    • Jyrki Sukula ottaa voiton Ramskista

                      I could post you the original. But then again you would start demanding for the original from iPhone 4S. I could provide you even that, but then you would probably start yelling about the EXIF data.

                      Some apps on iPhone give that data, and some don’t. In any case, since the image was enhanced with software, inside the application, and there is no “original RAW data” (whatever that means) available, there just isn’t any EXIF data you are familiar with. I have explained this to you some time ago, but you either didn’t understand it or you just don’t want to understand.

                      In any case, I could provide you that data only from the picture taken with 808 but those taken with 4S just doesn’t really have it.

                      This is why it’s pointless to give you such data. You just don’t understand, that enhancing camera quality works differently and you really can’t compare EXIF data from the images.

                      Apparently it’s not enough for you to compare just the images. Even if you had all the available data there can be. You would just come up with some other demands.

                      You sure are funny.

                    • AreOut

                      well out of so many apps there has to be one showing EXIF eh? ;)

                    • Jyrki Sukula ottaa voiton Ramskista

                      Probably there are.

                      But that particular app I used in iPhone, does not produce that data. And why should it, because the data produced by the camera is enhanced with software.

                      Anyway, I can just that particular image with better quality if I use 4S. And that’s all I need because I want to have the picture, not really that much the EXIF data while it may be interesting.

                      So, you will never be happy with that picture because you don’t want to look at the actual picture but only the specs.

                    • AreOut

                      Yes I want you to prove us that you actually possess the 808, and for that you will need to post original unedited file. You can also picture this screen(of this blog) with your 808 and show as.

                    • Jyrki Sukula ottaa voiton Ramskista

                      And posting that kind of picture would be enough to prove it for you?

                    • AreOut

                      yeah just go on and picture this screen

        • burningBit

          You can have all the settings in the world, but it won’t make up for your inferior hardware.

      • Grendell

        Just pointing out that Nokia might have had better synergy before when it used bigger sensors with good software to get its results vs. the compromises it may have had to make for a slimmer form factor or possibly cut costs with smaller sensor sizes and relied more on software to take up the slack.

  • Alex

    I would like to have the call bar of Nokia 808 as the image above. what can i do? I just bought a nokia 808 yesterday with feature pack 2 included but the call bar is different from above picture

Advertisements