41 MP Nokia 808 pureview

[drjustice1988]

Nokia this time had taken the pixel fight to an unbelievable level. We find ourselves with more questions than answers about what other phone giants will respond.
• Will other manufacturers decide to take Nokia head on and try to beat the 41Mpix record?
• Will competitors decide not to challenge the 41Mpx and focus on other technical specifications?
• Is it time for the Nokians to proudly take pictures in public and see owners of competitors phones hide their phones in shame?
• Is Nokia satisfied with the amount of pixels in the Pure View or they have future plans to release even a more powerful camera phone?
• Is it time for Nokia to give Samsung and Apple a run for their money by branching into the tablet industry?


http://www.nokia4life.com/2012/03/17...-0-3-to-41-mp/

[Howmander]

I think the answer to that is what do MOST people use their camera phones for? Twitter, Facebook and sending to other phones. There will absolutely be people responding to this thread who will say that they use their camera phones for a multi national photography empire (because there's always SOMEONE who needs to argue every point made by anyone in every thread across the entire internet), but honestly, most people just want the highest MP simply because it's the most and therefore must be the best. Most users would be perfectly fine with 5mp. Heck, 2mp, let's be honest, would be more than enough for what people generally use their camera phones for. I like having my 8mp phone at my side at all times, but I honestly have yet to use a single picture for something other than facebook, twitter, sending to another phone or emailing them to someone, and most everyone else is in the same boat quite honestly.

Edit: Here's an interesting read from last year: http://www.adorama.com/alc/blogarticle/12858

[drjustice1988]

Thank you for your comment and more especially for the link.I am an average person in terms of technology and most people will agree with me that we think the bigger the number of megapixels the better the picture quality.It would also be great to boast to friends about how many pixels my phone has.

[zadigre]

when Compact cameras started to appear on the market with 8+Mpix sensor, I had at that time a Pentax K100d with a 6Mpix sensor...
pictures from this camera were perfect compared to those 8Mpix cameras...
a good lens is always more important than a very high megapixels sensor...

[Lazybones]

Ask me if the Nokia even shows up on this list http://www.flickr.com/cameras/

[Doolie]

when Compact cameras started to appear on the market with 8+Mpix sensor, I had at that time a Pentax K100d with a 6Mpix sensor...
pictures from this camera were perfect compared to those 8Mpix cameras...
a good lens is always more important than a very high megapixels sensor...

True, that a good lens is important, though the sensor quality is also important. Taking pictures in low light is an obstacle for digital photography. We really only need around 5-8 megapixels for adequate photos in good light, unless we are taking wall sized poster mural photos. For that, I wouldn't be using a cell phone with a tiny sensor.

[pdp76]

I was a little baffled by the point of a 41MP camera on a phone in the first place. Top of the line professional SLRs (like Canon 1D X) are typically less than 20MP and the pictures they take will no doubt be much better than the PureView. So I don't think the point of the Pureview is raw megapixels.

I read an interesting article that each of these tiny Pureview pixel sensors can be combined to create a larger virtual pixel sensor, resulting in gathering much more light per "pixel"... which is also one of the reasons why DSLRs take great pictures, because each pixel sensor is HUGE compared to a camera phone. http://www.allaboutsymbian.com/featu...us_the_com.php The article also seems to suggest that each big "virtual pixel" created by combining a bunch of little ones is better than if it was just one big pixel to begin with.

[Doolie]

I was a little baffled by the point of a 41MP camera on a phone in the first place. Top of the line professional SLRs (like Canon 1D X) are typically less than 20MP and the pictures they take will no doubt be much better than the PureView. So I don't think the point of the Pureview is raw megapixels.

I read an interesting article that each of these tiny Pureview pixel sensors can be combined to create a larger virtual pixel sensor, resulting in gathering much more light per "pixel"... which is also one of the reasons why DSLRs take great pictures, because each pixel sensor is HUGE compared to a camera phone. http://www.allaboutsymbian.com/featu...us_the_com.php The article also seems to suggest that each big "virtual pixel" created by combining a bunch of little ones is better than if it was just one big pixel to begin with.

Dedicated digital cameras have by comparison huge sensors than tiny cell phone camera sensors, resulting in way better picture quality.

[pdp76]

Dedicated digital cameras have by comparison huge sensors than tiny cell phone camera sensors, resulting in way better picture quality.

You'd be surprised actually. Average point and shoot (in the $100-$200 range) digital camera sensors are not that much bigger than many cell phone camera sensors (not talking about cheap 1MP camera phones, I'm talking about the popular smart phones). The really big difference if we look at DSLR sensors.

http://www.engadget.com/2011/12/16/e...-size-matters/

If you look at the first picture in the article, the average point and shoots are in the range of the second to smallest purple square while a decent camera phone is in the range of the yellow middle square. Between point and shoot and camera phones, the optics play a very big part, not as much sensor size. (sensor quality is a different story though) And just for reference, the PureView sensor size is the cyan colored one, third to smallest.

Now look at the DSLR sensor sizes (red and bigger)... now that is a HUGE jump in sensor size... so sensor size plays a much bigger part in the better picture quality of DSLRs, that and of course the optics.

[Loansharkie]

I'm thinking inline with most of the above posters. To me it's a great technology and would be fun to play with, but there are more important features in a phone. Also as an avid DSLR photographer, there a more important things to image quality than just pixel count, such as the quality of RAW and JPEG in different lighting situations; which speaks to lens/sensor size and quality etc. IMHO, and I would love to test this puppy out, we're still a little bit away from having any phone camera replace a quality point and shoot/ mid-range DSLR for an avid amature photographer.

[Doolie]

I'm thinking inline with most of the above posters. To me it's a great technology and would be fun to play with, but there are more important features in a phone. Also an avid DSLR photographer, there a more important things to image quality than just pixel count, such as the quality of RAW and JPEG in different lighting situations. IMHO, and I would love to test this puppy out, we're still a little bit away from having any phone camera replace a quality point and shoot/ mid-range DSLR for an avid amature photographer.

That makes sense.

[Telekom]

Nokia this time had taken the pixel fight to an unbelievable level. We find ourselves with more questions than answers about what other phone giants will respond.
• Will other manufacturers decide to take Nokia head on and try to beat the 41Mpix record?
• Will competitors decide not to challenge the 41Mpx and focus on other technical specifications?
• Is it time for the Nokians to proudly take pictures in public and see owners of competitors phones hide their phones in shame?
• Is Nokia satisfied with the amount of pixels in the Pure View or they have future plans to release even a more powerful camera phone?
• Is it time for Nokia to give Samsung and Apple a run for their money by branching into the tablet industry?


http://www.nokia4life.com/2012/03/17...-0-3-to-41-mp/

Anyone who knows anything at all about digital photography knows that just having a huge amount of pixels doesn't equal superior pictures.

[boooey]

Anyone who knows anything at all about digital photography knows that just having a huge amount of pixels doesn't equal superior pictures.

holy crap, you guys are so clueless.. why don't you do a little research on the Nokia 808 before spewing such false and uneducated information.

The point of having 41 megapixels is not to produce huge images. Its not the same gimmick as the old megapixels wars of years ago..

The 41 MP is used to produce stunning 5 megapixel images by oversampling and pixel binning the image down to 5mp, which retains all the detail and none of the noise of a 38MP image.

100% crops will look amazing.

[Doolie]

holy crap, you guys are so clueless.. why don't you do a little research on the Nokia 808 before spewing such false and uneducated information.

The point of having 41 megapixels is not to produce huge images. Its not the same gimmick as the old megapixels wars of years ago..

The 41 MP is used to produce stunning 5 megapixel images by oversampling and pixel binning the image down to 5mp, which retains all the detail and none of the noise of a 38MP image.

100% crops will look amazing.

It can’t replicate the optical effects of even an inexpensive point-and-shoot camera with a 3x optical zoom lens.

[pdp76]

holy crap, you guys are so clueless.. why don't you do a little research on the Nokia 808 before spewing such false and uneducated information.

The point of having 41 megapixels is not to produce huge images. Its not the same gimmick as the old megapixels wars of years ago..

The 41 MP is used to produce stunning 5 megapixel images by oversampling and pixel binning the image down to 5mp, which retains all the detail and none of the noise of a 38MP image.

100% crops will look amazing.

Dude, I called it a while back, look at my first post in this thread.