To those suggesting lower resolution pureview phones

[jdevenberg]

I don't think you all really understand the idea behind pureview. Even though the 808 has a41 mega pixel camera you only end up with a 5-8 mp photo. Pureview technology is based on the idea of over sampling. So you take a low light or high Iso photo, both of which are known to be high noise on cellphone cams. when set to the lowest resolution final image, you have 7 pixels of information for every 1 pixel in the final image. This allows the camera software to replace pixels that turned out as noise with one that turned out good. And in images taken under ideal situations (where little to no noise is present), it allows you to zoom in on am image with little to no loss of picture quality. In smaller, lower res sensors, these principles, on which the pureview idea and software are based, simply aren't possible at a level that will yield worth while results. Also the large physical size of the image sensor in the 808 is as much responsible for its picture quality as its high pixel count.

So before you go and suggest an 18 or 25 megapixel pureview with a smaller, less bulky sensor, realize two things:
1. either one of those things would drastically reduce the effect of the pureview software
2. What you are asking for wouldnt be a true pureview, it would just be a really nice standard cellphone camera.

 

[genuine555]

I agree with OP.

Mind that when it comes to camera quality, samsung is still king over nokia, and so is iPhone (my god, I can't believe I'm saying this). I've compared tons of pics from several nokia's over time with some samsung and iPhone pics, and none of them from the nokia devices were better or even as good as the others.

I guess if you go for samsung with carl zeiss lens, you have a very good cam.

Lumia really dissapoints, also carl zeiss for 800 and 900, but the pics just aren't as vivid and clear as other brands with same camera type and res.

Oversampled pics are nothing but bloated images (same qual with a lot of useless data to fill up the gaps, but you won't notice a real difference unless you want to make very big posters).
Def. not worth the extra buck for me. I also don't like the bulged cam on the back. Looks more like a flashlight then a cell phone.

 

[scottcraft]

I agree with OP.

Mind that when it comes to camera quality, samsung is still king over nokia, and so is iPhone (my god, I can't believe I'm saying this). I've compared tons of pics from several nokia's over time with some samsung and iPhone pics, and none of them from the nokia devices were better or even as good as the others.

I guess if you go for samsung with carl zeiss lens, you have a very good cam.

Lumia really dissapoints, also carl zeiss for 800 and 900, but the pics just aren't as vivid and clear as other brands with same camera type and res.

Oversampled pics are nothing but bloated images (same qual with a lot of useless data to fill up the gaps, but you won't notice a real difference unless you want to make very big posters).
Def. not worth the extra buck for me. I also don't like the bulged cam on the back. Looks more like a flashlight then a cell phone.

I've read reviews on pureview and looked at some of the pictures taken with it and I think it is the real deal. I want one very much!

 

[AngryNil]

Mind that when it comes to camera quality, samsung is still king over nokia, and so is iPhone (my god, I can't believe I'm saying this). I've compared tons of pics from several nokia's over time with some samsung and iPhone pics, and none of them from the nokia devices were better or even as good as the others.

We're talking about the PureView here. You clearly don't understand what Nokia is doing, it isn't blowing up 5MP images and adding noise. The 808's camera module actually captures 38MP shots. The image quality, especially when cropped, is second to none.

 

[jdevenberg]

Ya, I actually really like the pureview. My argument was against people who wanted watered down versions that are pureview in nothing but name

 

[Reflexx]

I think the pics were a response to genuine555.

Preview isn't just a nice camera. It's a game changing breakthrough in mobile phone camera technology.

I think genuine555 has likely only really seen the Lumia series from Nokia, and judged Nokia's picture quality based on those. But the N8 is far superior to the Lumias in terms of picture quality. And the 808 blows the N8 (and every other phone camera) out of the water. It's not even remotely close. The 808 rivals some high end point-and-shoot cameras.

 

[tissotti]

I agree with OP.

Mind that when it comes to camera quality, samsung is still king over nokia, and so is iPhone (my god, I can't believe I'm saying this). I've compared tons of pics from several nokia's over time with some samsung and iPhone pics, and none of them from the nokia devices were better or even as good as the others.

I guess if you go for samsung with carl zeiss lens, you have a very good cam.

Lumia really dissapoints, also carl zeiss for 800 and 900, but the pics just aren't as vivid and clear as other brands with same camera type and res.

Oversampled pics are nothing but bloated images (same qual with a lot of useless data to fill up the gaps, but you won't notice a real difference unless you want to make very big posters).
Def. not worth the extra buck for me. I also don't like the bulged cam on the back. Looks more like a flashlight then a cell phone.

Sorry my friend but you are not even getting the basic idea of the technology here. Neither it seems you have read any of the Engadget, GSMArena, The Verge, DSLR sites reviews, or seen the comparison pics.
http://i.nokia.com/blob/view/-/849564/data/2/-/Download1.pdf

It has an 41MP sensor, yes REAL 41MP sensor. You can take 38MP pictures if you want, it has PureView mode to take 3, 5 and 8Mp pictures, in this mode it uses oversampling. In DSLR's this is usually called binning. Nokia is capable of getting much more out of binning/oversampling thanks to the much higher image processing unit (internal GPU in SoC and one more GPU inside the camera module that does the initial work) you find in any DLSR.

And Samsung or Apple have never been a camera king. That place has been pretty much switched around by SE and Nokia for past 11 years way before even the likes of N93, both not strong brands in North America of course.
Last one holding camera king place was Nokia N8, now clearly taken by 808 PureView.

Here's example medium light comparison between 808 and GS2.

GS2

808 PureView

Via Low light photo shootout between 808 PureView, N8 and GS2 | nokiagadgets.com


It's not a coincidence you see DSLR sites and blogs reviewing Nokia 808 PureView all around.

Review: Nokia 808 PureView: Digital Photography Review
Mystery Camera Revealed: Nokia 808 PureView Test Shots in the Face-Off

GSMarena
Nokia 808 PureView review: Photo Finnish - GSMArena.com


Some camera samples.
Nokia 808 PureView Tips and Photos by Lassi Kujala | nokiagadgets.com

by Lassi Kujala (http://lassikujala.1g.fi/kuvat/)

How about the video recording of 808 PureView vs GS3.

http://nokiagadgets.com/2012/08/05/...laxy-s-iii-concert-video-recording-and-sound/

 

[APV]

I'd actually like to see a 5K (18mp "widescreen") sensor in a future Nokia.

Recording 5K video is extremely useful, as you can digitally stabilize, crop, and still scale down to 1080p with better clarity than something recorded directly in 1080p. Nokia's current pureview always records at 1080p, which is a bit of a drawback. The default setting for video could always be "pureview-ed 1080p," but there should be the option for full-resolution 5K video capture, as it's just as important and useful to fans of video as a 38mp capture is to fans of photos, and Nokia gives us that at least.

But I suppose people care more about the "photo" aspect of Pureview. Plus, 5K video would take up a lot of memory. (But then maybe Nokia should make a premium Windows Phone device, for once, and give it more than 16GB. And also an expandable card slot.)

Also, (and why has nobody thought of this,) there should be an on-screen slider for the focusing, where sliding up smoothly refocuses the lens across the range from near to far and back. Would be EXTREMELY useful, as autofocus does suck quite a lot. Heck, it would be extremely useful for photos too. If 5K doesn't happen, at least an on-screen focus slider should. Just because. Manual focus is the ONE thing missing from nearly every portable video camera. It is needed. Nokia should bring it. The pros would be pleased. I wonder if Nokia has anything like it patented... If anyone at all does. Maybe someone should get on that.

 

[anodynamic]

I'd actually like to see a 5K (18mp "widescreen") sensor in a future Nokia.

Recording 5K video is extremely useful, as you can digitally stabilize, crop, and still scale down to 1080p with better clarity than something recorded directly in 1080p. Nokia's current pureview always records at 1080p, which is a bit of a drawback. The default setting for video could always be "pureview-ed 1080p," but there should be the option for full-resolution 5K video capture, as it's just as important and useful to fans of video as a 38mp capture is to fans of photos, and Nokia gives us that at least.

In theory that's a great idea, but I think that will take quite some time to find it's way into a mobile phone. PureView is possible thanks to the power of mobile GPUs now are able to resample a single image without any noticeable delay. Now, with video you would need to resample 24 5K image to 1080p every second, and then that has to be compressed since uncompressed 1080p is somewhere in the range of 5-8GB of data per minute...

 

[APV]

In theory that's a great idea, but I think that will take quite some time to find it's way into a mobile phone. PureView is possible thanks to the power of mobile GPUs now are able to resample a single image without any noticeable delay. Now, with video you would need to resample 24 5K image to 1080p every second, and then that has to be compressed since uncompressed 1080p is somewhere in the range of 5-8GB of data per minute...

The current preview has an amazing processor. It scales down to 1080p instantly, but still makes use of the full sensor, (which is much higher a resolution than 5k,) as evident by the ability to pinch to zoom while recording. It just can't, at the moment, record to a higher resolution.

Also, considering "raw" 5k video from a RED EPIC is 3GB per minute, I'd rather have that than waste time compressing to 1080p, (which we know is already possible, as the current preview does it flawlessly.) Sure, less than 10-minutes of video fills a 32GB card, but to many, quality is worth it. (Also, there still could be compression options.) Plus, if it had the capability of handling 5k video, think about how quick it could handle photos...

 

[anodynamic]

It doesn't capture and resample the whole 41MP for video, but instead it uses a preprocessor that takes data from a group of pixels and makes a quick conversion into a single pixel before it goes into the video frame. It basically the same as what anything from 5MP phones to 30MP dSLRs do when shooting video, so it should of course improve the quality compared to anything with a similar sensor size as the chance of noise messing up the averaged pixel is lower.

And then there's the problem of storage. Putting at least 128GB of 60MB/s flash storage for handling any useful amount of such video in a phone would add even more to the cost, which would make the appeal of the product even lower. Same goes if they added the bulk needed for full size SD slot for those who would want to add that sort of storage themselves.

This is of course from today's perspective. I wouldn't be the least surprised if we have it in about five years.