OMG welcome to 2 gig snaps

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jT2tAqcWP4o

Is any UK operator going to carry it?

Also such a shame its not Android.

ill bet symbian isn't that bad any more

pics are ace too !

Saw a write up in a Sunday magazine, according to them the symbian operating system is poor. Added to the fact none of the carriers are going to list it.

Nokia really need to get their act together and move to android

Sent from my Galaxy S2 not a Crapple!

Nokia won't be around as a company for much longer. They've gone too far off track now.

Favourite to buy them at the moment is Microsoft with Facebook as an outside bet.

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/reviews/smartphones/376030/nokia-808-pureview

Truly staggering camera technology - it's such a shame Nokia chose to debut it on such an underwhelming smartphone

Symbian Belle is pretty good, it's just a shame the ElopTroll decided to kill it all in favour of a dead platform.

Windows phone 7 is a burning platform and if they think moving from CE to NT kernel is going to help matters then I'm concerned about the CEO.

Just like Sun, they should fire the top man, before he takes the company under, get a new person in and not stay on an exclusive path.

Sell MS phones, sell android phones, sell maemo phones and don't put all your eggs in one basket.

A mate of mine raves about this phone and Nokia's have always had great cameras. Android would be their only option though

A mate of mine raves about this phone and Nokia's have always had great cameras. Android would be their only option though

Disagree the OS on this was more than a bit tasty:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_N9

Just a shame nokia chose not to sell it to most countries after the ElopTroll decided to try and bump up his MS shares.

Aye, 41 megapixels - and every single one of them crap!

In fact there are not 41 MP - they achieve these numbers by interpolating the nearest neighbour pixels. Basically they are making up numbers or a more common term - lying!

I'm a fan of Nokia and have had many phones and currently have one, so I'm not knocking the Nokia - just the camera. My main reason for loving Nokia is the battery life. Far better than any other phone I or any one I know has had.

That is even more ridiculous than it sounds. The sensor will still be microscopic because a) it is a phone with a small lens and b ) otherwise they'd have to sell it for a fortune. So effectively you will have tiny, tiny, useless pixels. With pixels that small, they will be hardly sensitive to light at all, rendering it useless in anying other than saharan sunshine! Anyone who buys a phone as a camera either hasn't got a clue what they are looking at, or will be sorely disappointed if they actually want quality images!

Edited 2 August, 201213 yr by Loz

That thing kind of reminds me of this thing.

http://photojojo.com...hone-slr-mount/

I wonder if they'll make one to suit the Nokia?

Nah, for top photos you really need some tips from this guy. he IS the photo-guru

http://www.27bslash6.com/photography.html

dpreview have actually given this a "gold Award", so it can't be all bad.

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

That is even more ridiculous than it sounds. The sensor will still be microscopic because a) it is a phone with a small lens and b ) otherwise they'd have to sell it for a fortune. So effectively you will have tiny, tiny, useless pixels. With pixels that small, they will be hardly sensitive to light at all, rendering it useless in anying other than saharan sunshine! Anyone who buys a phone as a camera either hasn't got a clue what they are looking at, or will be sorely disappointed if they actually want quality images!

According to dpreview the sensor size actually seem fairly respectable:

Aye, 41 megapixels - and every single one of them crap!

In fact there are not 41 MP - they achieve these numbers by interpolating the nearest neighbour pixels. Basically they are making up numbers or a more common term - lying!

I'm a fan of Nokia and have had many phones and currently have one, so I'm not knocking the Nokia - just the camera. My main reason for loving Nokia is the battery life. Far better than any other phone I or any one I know has had.

No, there are 41MP on the sensor with 38MP of those pixels usable - they're not making up numbers at all, the intention of the very high resolution is not for use at the full resolution but instead to improve image noise through downsampling or to offer a digital zoom without upsampling. The sensor itself is massive even for a compact camera never mind a phone camera.

For those slating the phone without clearly even reading up on at all, I'd recommend doing so first:

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/8083837371/review-nokia-808-pureview/2

As for the choice of Symbian, it was the only one they could offer at the moment until they have time to adapt the platform for WP7. The newer versions of Android are a bit different underneath to other mobile operating systems in that rather than use a beefy central processor (or two) like the Cortex A9's most high end systems are now using, Symbian instead opts for a weaker primary processor and then uses more specialised hardware to give the necessary performance. In the 808's case, it needs the Broadcom hardware to process the large amount of pixels from the camera quickly which wouldn't currently be possible on the Windows phone platform which is limited to to a single Snapdragon CPU and Adreno GPU. So Nokia have released the 808 effectively as a technology demonstrator to gather headlines while giving them time to move the technology to Windows Phone which makes sense given the large number of negative headlines they've had recently.

I was a big fan of the N900 and Maemo, I was disappointed they abandoned that and went to WP7 which is pretty much the exact opposite of Maemo so even if a Windows phone version of this phone crops up it's unlikely to be of interest.

John

I dont care how many pixels my phone has, I own a PROPER camera (Nikon).

The new Nikon D4 has ~16MP and costs well over £5,000, for the body only; I think that says it all about pixel counts.

I dont care how many pixels my phone has, I own a PROPER camera (Nikon).

The new Nikon D4 has ~16MP and costs well over £5,000, for the body only; I think that says it all about pixel counts.

Most of your D4 cost is down to the metal work, single lense reflex mirror and the like:

http://www.techradar.com/reviews/cameras-and-camcorders/cameras/digital-slrs-hybrids/nikon-d4-1074531/review

The sensor in the nokia is a very good sensor for a phone and while no it'll never match a proper DSLR, it will be a lot better than many cheap point and shoot cameras.

Err, no, my Nikon has a very similar case and the mirrors are standard across the range, and it doesnt cost more than a FRACTION of £5.5k

Err, no, my Nikon has a very similar case and the mirrors are standard across the range, and it doesnt cost more than a FRACTION of £5.5k

Sorry, but I'm not knocking the Nikon, just pointing out that there is a lot of cost in a D4 body.

The cases may be similar but are not the same. The metal case costs a lot more to make than the cheap plastic one on lower models, as does the extended grip and more solid switches with rain proofing on the top models.

The mirror might be the same, but the mechanism that operates it, is not standard as the lower spec cameras have a lower snap speed for repeated shots. All of this adds cost to the base price for the CCD/CMOS.

Basically, the nokia phone is a reasonable capture device in a cheap body with a phone.

Think of it comparing to a point and click, lower end compact camera. It's not meant to compete against a DSLR and certainly not against a D4 or EOS 5D / 1D etc

Actually, the cost of the D4 CANNOT be justified by the cost of making it; like everything else they are charging a premium for it being new and shiny, in a years time it will be under £3k, and a year after that it may actually reflect its true value.

Actually, the cost of the D4 CANNOT be justified by the cost of making it; like everything else they are charging a premium for it being new and shiny, in a years time it will be under £3k, and a year after that it may actually reflect its true value.

Fine, but the point I was making that it being the price it is is in a large part down to the cost of making a DSLR with a decent body, vs the cost of making a cheap phone with a reasonable camera.

Anyway, I think the point I was trying to make is fairly clear, which is don't compare a phone costing a few hundred to a DSLR and expect the phone to come anywhere near,

Actually, the cost of the D4 CANNOT be justified by the cost of making it

You mean by 'cost of parts'. I'm pretty sure the R&D and manpower behind 'making' it stack up quite high in the overall RRP considering the D4 isn't exactly mass-market.

I think the Nokia shows an ingenious approach to camera phones - 90% of which are used in low light. Noise reduction through interpolation and a zoom that doesn't upscale puts it way ahead of the competition (on paper) for me. Would love to see some day-to-day shots from it once they proliferate on the 'net.

Yes, sorry, that is what I meant, although the tech used will be reused as it filters down through the cheaper models that follow, so they shouldnt really be writing off the R&D cost on just one camera..

BTW, these phones cost an awful lot more than we usually pay for them, the networks subsidise the price to get you to buy and use them. That is why SIM free phones tend to cost more than the same phone with (for example) an 02 SIM in it, and a LT more than the same phone tied to a contract and/or network.