Nokia WP8 Announcement today -LIVE

Dyr

tbh the presentation was a bit cringeworthy, they were making grandiose hyberbolic statments, pausing for effect then there would be an awkward silence before some half hearted clapping eventually kicked in..looked awful

Oafley Jones

Like the look of the 920, although I'd prefer matte and miss the cyan. The 820 looks rotten though. Still think the ruined the look of WP, seems cluttered (yes I know you can customize tile size etc.) especially without the asymmetrical black bar. I own a HOX and love it, but every time I go into a phone shop I'm drawn towards the Lumia 800s and regret not buying one; they're a magnificent piece of design, but that 820 is a huge step backwards.

quad_red

Can't believe they ditched amoled screens for LCD (especially after gring on about how the true blacks of amoled were perfect for windows mobile on the Lumia 800).

After totally overpromising with the imaging tech in the 808, they've totally under delivered.

And according to engadget the new gloss plastic back looks and feels cheap compared to the previous generation's cases.

Just all very underwhelming.

AngryLips

Why are there so many enraged comments about the camera? Once you go over five megapixel the megapixel count becomes a non-issue unless you intend blowing your photographs up to poster size anyway.

The event was underwhelming but, then again, what can Nokia do about that? Nobody cares about hardware anymore once you tick all the right boxes (which they've pretty much done) ...what matters most is the UI and that's out of their control.

g0g

AngryLips wrote: »

Why are there so many enraged comments about the camera? Once you go over five megapixel the megapixel count becomes a non-issue unless you intend blowing your photographs up to poster size anyway.

The event was underwhelming but, then again, what can Nokia do about that? Nobody cares about hardware anymore once you tick all the right boxes (which they've pretty much done) ...what matters most is the UI and that's out of their control.

Re the camera I think the point is that with loads more megapixels (e.g. 42) you can digitally zoom in on a small enough area of the photo yet still have a high quality image (e.g. 5MP+), thus finding a way around phones not having optical zoom with lenses.

Inquitus

g0g wrote: »

Re the camera I think the point is that with loads more megapixels (e.g. 42) you can digitally zoom in on a small enough area of the photo yet still have a high quality image (e.g. 5MP+), thus finding a way around phones not having optical zoom with lenses.

Exactly right, phone cameras are all pretty much good enough, for all they are good for, on any OS's flagship handsets. What they suck at is being able to take photos when optical zoom is required, which incidentally is pretty much any photo you want to take that's not of people, the only way cameraphones can get round this is with digital zoom by having an extremely high pixel count.

BostonB

For those interested in the best phone cameras its not about pixels or zoom (well a little bit). But that he 808 simply takes much better photos.

http://pocketnow.com/2012/07/16/apple-iphone-4s-vs-samsung-galaxy-s-iii-vs-nokia-808-pureview-vs-htc-one-x-camera-shoot-out-video/
http://www.allaboutsymbian.com/flow/item/15013_Camera_phone_shootout_Nokia_80.php
http://blog.gsmarena.com/nokia-808-pureview-vs-olympus-e-pl2-vs-canon-5d-mark-iii-vs-apple-iphone-4s-38mp-shootout/

That said the main issue for Nokia is how good Windows Phone 8 is. I don't think having the best camera will save them. That said I'd love an 808.

Oafley Jones

g0g wrote: »

Re the camera I think the point is that with loads more megapixels (e.g. 42) you can digitally zoom in on a small enough area of the photo yet still have a high quality image (e.g. 5MP+), thus finding a way around phones not having optical zoom with lenses.

That's not what they were doing with Pureview at all.

edit. See BostonB's post.

Dyr

Did anyone else find it odd that nokia completely ignored the corporate/office features of WP8 in this launch? Aiming at a different market perhaps.

Inquitus

BostonB wrote: »

For those interested in the best phone cameras its not about pixels or zoom (well a little bit). But that he 808 simply takes much better photos.

http://pocketnow.com/2012/07/16/apple-iphone-4s-vs-samsung-galaxy-s-iii-vs-nokia-808-pureview-vs-htc-one-x-camera-shoot-out-video/
http://www.allaboutsymbian.com/flow/item/15013_Camera_phone_shootout_Nokia_80.php
http://blog.gsmarena.com/nokia-808-pureview-vs-olympus-e-pl2-vs-canon-5d-mark-iii-vs-apple-iphone-4s-38mp-shootout/

That said the main issue for Nokia is how good Windows Phone 8 is. I don't think having the best camera will save them. That said I'd love an 808.

The 920 might take better photos but noone really cares, all cameras on flagship phones take good enough pics for Facebook and Twitter etc. and none of them are any use for more than casual pics when out with friends, family due to the lack of any sort of viable zoom.

This is a terrible way for Nokia to try and differentiate themselves, as 95% of people are happy enough with their iPhone 4S or SGS3 cameras, and don't really care.

AngryLips

I was hoping for more WP8 news from the event, but there's nothing. No mention of Skype integration...

BostonB

Inquitus wrote: »

The 920 might take better photos but noone really cares, all cameras on flagship phones take good enough pics for Facebook and Twitter etc. and none of them are any use for more than casual pics when out with friends, family due to the lack of any sort of viable zoom.

This is a terrible way for Nokia to try and differentiate themselves, as 95% of people are happy enough with their iPhone 4S or SGS3 cameras, and don't really care.

I dunno why you are quoting me about the 920 when I was correcting the info about the 808 which has a different camera completely.

I don't get the problem you have with zooming for social shots. You can simply walk closer to the subject your taking. Besides people focusing on zoom on the 808 are missing the main point of the technology. Never mind comparing it with the 920 which has a different unit.

One of the main improvements of the iPhone 4S vs 4 is a better camera. The S3 has some improvements over the S2 aswell. Considering the effort that goes into marketing he camera features I think slightly miss leading to say no one cares about the quality/functionality of the camera. They wouldn't go to all that effort if it didn't have a significant impact on sales. I'm not saying that most people would realise the difference but they understand they want a decent camera when they pay top money for a phone.

g0g

Oafley Jones wrote: »

That's not what they were doing with Pureview at all.

edit. See BostonB's post.

You sure? That's certainly the impression I got from watching the various Nokia videos in the past anyway. Otherwise why would you possible want so many MPs in an image!?

Dyr

Ouch :pac:

http://www.theverge.com/2012/9/5/3294545/nokias-pureview-ads-are-fraudulent

Francie Barrett

That is shameful.

BostonB

g0g wrote: »

You sure? That's certainly the impression I got from watching the various Nokia videos in the past anyway. Otherwise why would you possible want so many MPs in an image!?

Due to the industry miss selling the whole mega pixel terminology the majority of people don't really understands that more mega pixels does not always equal better quality.

The Finnish company is at pains to point out that when it comes to image capture, the 808's headline specification of 41MP is far from the whole story. In fact, one of the reasons why Nokia has incorporated such a high pixel count is to allow the 808 to produce better quality lower-resolution images (3MP, 5MP or 8MP).

The main reason to use a big pixel capture is oversampling.

In Nokia's words, 'pixel oversampling combines many pixels to create a single (super) pixel'. In theory then, at 28mm (equivalent) - i.e., without any 'zoom', the camera's 3MP PureView output should give the best critical image quality, followed by 5MP, then 8MP, and then 38MP. When fully zoomed in, all four output modes will give the same pixel-level image quality, since at this point there is no oversampling going on

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

That said theres a lot of other things going on like the lense and the IOS etc. The end result it that the 808 is a massive jump in image quality over other mobile phones, its approaching that of camera's and DSLR's, which is stunning.

Of course if people don't understand the tech, (or want it) its not much of a selling point. Its quite similar to SQ on phones. Most people wouldn't know the difference between a good sounding music player and a bad one. So wouldn't appreciate some phones with very good MP3 playback and some are brutal.

BostonB

Francie Barrett wrote: »

That is shameful.

A own goal for sure. Nokia is its own worst enemy.

Francie Barrett

Not only is the video faked, but the photos are doctored too!

http://sefsar.com/nokia-faked-the-still-photos-too

gizmo

On the other hand, there's this...

Nokia takes photo challengers against the Lumia 920 PureView, crushes the iPhone, GS3

Personally I'd prefer better low level light performance than the additional zoom abilities of a higher MP camera. And lets not forget what that huge sensor found in the 808 actually does the profile of the phone. While it would be nice to see such tech in one of their WP8 models, I certainly wouldn't want it in their flagship model with no other options.

quad_red

Bambi wrote: »

Ouch :pac:

http://www.theverge.com/2012/9/5/3294545/nokias-pureview-ads-are-fraudulent

Bigging up Pureview with clear implication that the technology was similar to what was in the (superbly capable) 808. And then with a glitzy trailer which clearly sends the message it was filmed with the phone.

And it turns out that really f**k all of what was in the 808 has made it over and the glitzy trailer really represented f**k all of what the new phone was capable of.

Fail.

BostonB

Corrected that for you

gizmo wrote: »

...Personally I'd prefer better low level light performance than the additional zoom abilities and the better image quality for oversampling of a higher MP camera. ...

However, the 808 also has a vastly superior Xenon flash, high ISO, and f2.4 lens so would be much better in low light than the 920. So AFAIK the first bit isn't right either.

BostonB

quad_red wrote: »

Bigging up Pureview with clear implication that the technology was similar to what was in the (superbly capable) 808. And then with a glitzy trailer which clearly sends the message it was filmed with the phone.

And it turns out that really f**k all of what was in the 808 has made it over and the glitzy trailer really represented f**k all of what the new phone was capable of.

Fail.

This is a bit like MacDonalds photos looking nothing like the food you actually get. its quite common for advertisements to use stylised images, photos to illustrate products but they usually include a disclaimer that they've done so. Nokia have said "Pureview" is a brand not a technology. But its bit like TV makers highlighting 100hz MCI to confuse people about refresh rate when a TV is only a 50Hz refresh.

Sharp practise if you ask me. That said the 920 has some new tech in it to take better photos.

gizmo

BostonB wrote: »

Corrected that for you

However, the 808 also has a vastly superior Xenon flash, high ISO, and f2.4 lens so would be much better in low light than the 920. So AFAIK the first bit isn't right either.

Cheers.

Kinda got that first bit arseways too, I meant it in the context of the phone/camera when compared to the other thinner profile models.

BostonB

I know what you mean. In fairness the other comments about top end camera's being broadly the same are more or less correct. The 808 is a bit of an odd ball. The 920 I haven't seen enough samples of photos to know yet.


Something like the shot speed, how long it takes to take a photo is critical in getting a non blurred photo, people need to look beyond the MP count on camera's. I don't know if they will though. I guess the Manufacturers aren't really getting the right information across in their marketing.

testicle

Bambi wrote: »

Ouch :pac:

http://www.theverge.com/2012/9/5/3294545/nokias-pureview-ads-are-fraudulent

Sure, who was videoing the 2 cyclists?

ShadowHearth

Lads, was price and launch date announced too?

And even of take all the Nokia bull**** faked pictures, would that camera still be better then s3 or iPhone?

2 things that most important in phone for me: good camera and good browser. This phone being widows phone might not be too bad too?

I wonder of there is still some space for optimism. It's a shame that in high end game there is only iPhone and s3, would love to see more.

Dyr

testicle wrote: »

Sure, who was videoing the 2 cyclists?

back... and to the left, back... and to the left, back and to the left

quad_red

At least they're getting broader media coverage

"Nokia couldn’t get its act together to release prices or release dates for its latest, lovely handset. That basic blunder is not one that Apple will make when it announces the iPhone 5 next week, or that Samsung makes when it launches important new products".

http://www.independent.ie/business/technology/nokia-lumia-920-first-impressions-3221770.html

NOKIA AND Microsoft took the wraps off their most powerful smartphone yesterday, but the new Lumia failed to impress investors and shares of Nokia – which once dominated the mobile phone market – plummeted 13 per cent.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2012/0906/1224323652922.html

Fake Footage in the ad

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2012/09/06/theyre-probably-not-even-real-hipsters/

BostonB

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Lads, was price and launch date announced too?

And even of take all the Nokia bull**** faked pictures, would that camera still be better then s3 or iPhone?

2 things that most important in phone for me: good camera and good browser. This phone being widows phone might not be too bad too?

I wonder of there is still some space for optimism. It's a shame that in high end game there is only iPhone and s3, would love to see more.

I think you'd need to wait and read some reviews when people have done more comprehensive comparisons. Too early to know. Price would be a factor I assume too.

Francie Barrett

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Lads, was price and launch date announced too?

And even of take all the Nokia bull**** faked pictures, would that camera still be better then s3 or iPhone?

2 things that most important in phone for me: good camera and good browser. This phone being widows phone might not be too bad too?

I wonder of there is still some space for optimism. It's a shame that in high end game there is only iPhone and s3, would love to see more.

If you want the best camera and a perfectly good browser, then consider the Nokia Pureview 808.