Nokia trumps Nikon with a 41MP phone.

[jjj]

Stuff the D800, get a Nokia 808!

I don't thinks it's April the 1st....

"The technology means that taking typically sized shots (say, 5 megapixels) the camera can use oversampling to combine up to seven pixels into one “pure” pixel, eliminating the visual noise found on other mobile phone cameras. On top of that, you can zoom in up to 3X without losing any of the details in your shot – and there’s no artificially created pixels in your picture, either."

Maybe you can also increase the number of Angels dancing on head of a pin if they take turns.

[wildlightphoto]

OMG!  I'm dumping my D800E as soon as it arrives! (which will be never, because I'm one of the few people who hasn't been 'amazed' or 'stunned' by its output).

 

[AlfSollund]

Ok whitepaper by Nokia:

http://europe.nokia.com/PRODUCT_METADATA_0/Products/Phones/8000-series/808/Nokia808PureView_Whitepaper.pdf

[BernardLanguillier]

Yes... but does it have a dedicated MLU control?

Cheers,
Bernard

[BJL]

The 1/1.2" format (about 14mm diagonal) is quite impressive for any pocketable camera: far bigger than Pentax Q, almost as big as Nikon One.

Actually this is a bit like a fantasy of mine from many years ago:
- the biggest sensor you can afford, for best performance at wide to normal field of view (I was thinking even biggest than 35mm format, ignorant of the high cost)
- the smallest, most numerous pixels you can manage, for telephoto reach through cropping rather than zooming, and so easy optical design and a more compact lens
- oversampling and binning/downsampling to avoid aliasing without any OLPF and improve the DR and low light performance far beyond what the "per pixel" performance numbers suggest.

That f/2.4 lens wide-open is near the "diffraction limit" of the 1.4 micron photo-sites, so there may still be some aliasing, but it should be easy enough to fix with the heavy binning/downsampling. Or by stopping down a bit.

I would actually like to see something like this in a compact camera: there is room in a pocketable body for a 4/3" or "APS" format sensor and a fast, fixed focal length moderately wide lens, about 14-18mm. Throw in a 2x or 3x add-on convertor for the occasions when you want better telephoto performance.

Could this be another case of new technology being tried first in a higher-volume lower-level market, and then working its way upwards?



P. S. Never mind MLU: can it do 4K video? How about 8K? It's got the pixels.

[BernardLanguillier]

Too bad it is not a Win7 phone though... I could see myself replacing my iphone with this baby but this OS is a bit of a dead end.

Cheers,
Bernard

[JonathanRimmel]

Wow, this phone seems to be fantastic. Reading the White Paper they posted http://europe.nokia.com/PRODUCT_METADATA_0/Products/Phones/8000-series/808/Nokia808PureView_Whitepaper.pdf makes me think they actually know something about photography, which is great! Now if only they had a different OS then I would LOVE to get one. The sensor is relatively large, bigger then some compacts! The greatest thing here is how they make use all all of those pixels. It isn't about the numbers, they are actually utilizing them in a way which improves image quality. The sample images are shockingly good.

[PierreVandevenne]

The samples are really impressive for a phone

http://cdn.conversations.nokia.com.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Archive2.zip

[BJL]

Pierre, thanks for the link.

Hopefully, this camera will help to illustrate that IQ depends a lot more on the light gathering ability of the sensor as a whole (1/1.2", huge for a phone) and the aperture size (f=8.02mm, f/2.4 = 3.34mm so again impressively large by camera-phone and even pocket camera standards) than photo-site size (the same tiny 1.4 microns as in many recent camera-phones).

(Oh, but I can see noise in the sky at 100% pixels on-screen, at ISO 58!)

[PierreVandevenne]

Yes, there is some noise. And some purple chroma noise in some of the areas as well. And the lens doesn't seem that good compared to DSLR lenses. And the fuzzy feeling that there're just too many pixels for the amount of details. Etc... It certainly won't steal Nikon's show.

But that picture quality and depth of field control in a phone... I am amazed.

[NikoJorj]

Some other samples here : http://www.gsmarena.com/nokia_808_pureview_video_and_camera_samples-news-3905.php
Not that much many pixels with enough light, though. Too bad there isn't any sample past ISO58 or so...

[BernardLanguillier]

Some other samples here : http://www.gsmarena.com/nokia_808_pureview_video_and_camera_samples-news-3905.php
Not that much many pixels with enough light, though. Too bad there isn't any sample past ISO58 or so...

These base ISO samples are simply amazingly good... not just for a phone but even for a compact camera.

Now... since its OS make it very unusable as a generic smart phone... I see it more as a fixed lens camera with calling ability than as a phone...

Cheers,
Bernard

[Dennishh]

I'm waiting for the full frame Nokia 809!

[jjj]

These base ISO samples are simply amazingly good... not just for a phone but even for a compact camera.

Thy are indeed. Samples were up when I first saw phone being announced. Am quite impressed.

[jjj]

I'm waiting for the full frame Nokia 809!

Not the 835?

[Ray]

Whilst the Nokia 808 Pure View seems a very sensible implementation of modern technology and faster processing speeds, let's not get carried away by some of the hyperbole in their white paper.

The 'amazing' quality is mainly due to a much larger sensor.  All else being equal, the larger the sensor the better the image quality. Those who prefer the APS-C DSLR format to the much smaller P&S formats have always been aware of this fact, just as those who prefer full-frame 35mm to the cropped 35mm formats have also been aware of this fact, as have those who prefer MFDB to 35mm format. It's the reason why many of us choose to lug around heavy equipment.


Whilst there are clear advantages to using a crop instead of a longer focal length on the full size sensor, such as better edge resolution, maybe a choice of a wider aperture than may be available on the longer lens and therefore a faster shutter speed etc, one can't avoid the reduced image quality that accompanies the increased zoom.

I think the main advantage of the Nokia Pure View regarding its telephoto capability is that one can use F2.4 at full zoom. However, image quality at full zoom will be limited by those noisy 1.4 micron pixels, and a sharp lens can not help avoid that. At full zoom we're back to the standard quality one expects from a mobile phone.

[BJL]

Whilst the Nokia 808 Pure View seems a very sensible implementation of modern technology and faster processing speeds, let's not get carried away by some of the hyperbole in their white paper.

The 'amazing' quality is mainly due to a much larger sensor.

And the relevance of the large sensor is stated repeatedly by Nokia, in the whitepaper and elsewhere. As to your observations about cropping for telephoto reach and the hazards of small pixels: have you forgotten that this is a phone, with the constraint of being thin enough to fit in pocket, and therefore a severe upper limit on focal length? Quite simply, that limits any narrow angle of view photography to a small image size, and this requires small photosites. In the realm of camera-phones and their zoom performance, its focal length is about twice the norm, so it could be called "f1.2 equivalent" for light gathering speed and DOF control.


Nokia must be happy that the adverse comments about this camera are all in comparison to far bulkier, non-pocketable alternatives, with far bulkier lenses.

[PierreVandevenne]

The 'amazing' quality is mainly due to a much larger sensor.

Indeed, isn't it amazing that they fit a larger sensor in such a small form factor?

At full zoom we're back to the standard quality one expects from a mobile phone.

Indeed again (and possibly a bit worse than the best camera phone). Still, isn't it amazing that they fit a zoom in such a small form factor?

Nobody claims that the images are perfect, but the samples that have been made available clearly show potential. We'd have such images from a bridge camera three years ago, we'd have called it a winner.

The videos are extremely impressive as well. While I am extremely happy with my current phone (Galaxy SII), I am almost tempted to purchase the Nokia for its camera only.

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

The 808 surely is amazing for a phone.
Some time ago I was tempted to buy the Nokia N8.
Instead I went for another (cheaper) phone and bought a Cannon S95.
I have it right here in my pocket.
I don't regret this.

[Ray]

Each to his own. If the image quality of this Nokia is better than the average, current image quality from bulkier P&S cameras, then that's clearly a worthwhile improvement and a precedent that P&S manufacturers should follow.

The problem I have is with the general concept of praising something on the basis of deliberate constraints. For example, "This image is pretty mediocre, a bit noisy in the sky and has rather poor shadow detail, but isn't it fantastic considering it was taken with a mobile phone."

I simply don't wish to produce images with inadequacies that I feel the need to make excuses for. Another example, "This image is a bit blurred, but isn't it fantastic considering I was standing upside-down on one hand when I took it?"

Speaking from my own experience, I've found in the past that after being lured into acquiring a P&S as a result of positive reviews on LL and elswhere, and after shooting a few images that seem pretty good considering the camera is just a P&S, I eventually lose interest because it becomes very clear that image quality is always compromised to some degree in relation to my DSLR standard.