Nokia 808 PureView: Retested with the new DxOMark Mobile protocol

61
DxOMark Mobile

A photographically groundbreaking smartphone in 2012, the Nokia 808 uses a large 1/1.2-inch sensor and massive 41MP resolution. The big sensor allows the use of a larger lens that gathers more light, and the Nokia 808 offered better image quality than many of its rivals at the time. The 41MP sensor also opened the door for zoom on smartphones, which is one of the functions Apple brought back with the dual-camera technology on the iPhone 7 Plus in 2016.

Smartphone camera technology has moved on exponentially since 2012, however, with manufacturers using new hardware and improved algorithms for HDR and bokeh processing.

We’ve gone back and retested the Nokia 808 using the new protocol and the results are interesting. The summary sections provide a basic overview of its performance, and to help you better understand the changes under the new protocol, the “Photo scores explained” section provides more detail on its impact on scores.

Key camera specifications:

  • 1/1.2-inch sensor with 41MP resolution (38MP effective)
  • f/2.4 Carl Zeiss lens
  • Full-HD video
  • 4x ‘lossless’ zoom
  • Xenon flash
  • 4-inch AMOLED LCD display with 360×640-pixel resolution

Please note that for this article we have retested the HTC U11 with our updated DxOMark Mobile test protocol that includes tests for zoom performance and quality of the bokeh, among other improvements. You can still find our original Nokia 808 PureView review from December 2012 here.

Test Summary: Big sensor, good detail (sometimes)

The Nokia 808 PureView obtains one of the lowest scores among devices that have been tested with our new test protocol. However, this should not be a surprise at all, as we did not retest any other devices with a lower original test protocol score, and the Nokia was launched several device generations ago.

Bright Light: Best with static scenes

In the right conditions the Nokia 808 PureView is capable of some excellent exposures with good tonality, fine detail preservation and bold color.

The Nokia 808 records accurate exposures with pleasant color in bright light conditions, but slow autofocus response times mean that capturing the decisive moment with moving subjects can be tricky.

We’ve added more high contrast scenes in the new testing protocol to challenge the HDR capabilities of devices. With no auto-enabled HDR feature, the Nokia 808 struggles to record good dynamic range.

The large sensor helps minimize noise, and although fine luminance noise is visible in areas of plain color, it’s not offensive, and similar in nature to more current devices such as the Google Pixel. The large sensor has advantages over smaller chips in terms of dynamic range, but cannot compete with the software-powered multi-frame HDR-features embedded in most recent smartphones. This translates to limited dynamic range, with a loss of detail in both shadow and highlight areas in high-contrast scenes. The Nokia 808 produces its best exposures in well-balanced outdoor or bright light conditions with little subject movement.

A small amount of pinch zoom also captures better-than-expected detail in good light. It renders a slight but pleasant background bokeh effect with portraits, too. Although the blur isn’t as pronounced as we’ve seen on devices with algorithms that enhance the effect artificially, the Nokia 808’s bokeh can appear more natural, with no unsightly masking errors or artifacts around the portrait.

Low light and flash: Long exposures are challenging

The Nokia 808 provides good exposures in some indoor and low-light conditions, but noticeably underexposes in very low light. Long exposure times, often exceeding 1/10 sec, also make it challenging to capture sharp handheld images, even in static low-light scenes, and especially in those with subject motion. The use of flash improves detail in extreme low light, but flash portraits remain noticeably underexposed compared to newer devices. Flash pictures also display some white balance inconsistencies, including variation in color between the center and edges, as well as heavy vignetting. Low-light detail deteriorates quickly when using the digital zoom.

The 100% crops below were made from images shot handheld in low light (20 Lux). As you can see the Nokia 808 displays a strong loss of detail compared to recent devices, which offer shorter exposure time and less camera shake.

Nokia 808 PureView, 20 Lux, handheld

Apple iPhone 7, 20 Lux, handheld

Samsung Galaxy S6 Edge, 20 Lux, handheld

Video: Low noise, but slow autofocus and no stabilization

The new temporal analysis of video under the updated protocol helps us detect more issues with color and exposure in video. The Nokia 808’s key strength for video is fairly low levels of noise on movies shot in all light conditions. However, we detected some color issues, with strong color casts in all light conditions, and heavy color shading. Video autofocus is slow, too, making smooth videos with subject tracking challenging. The Nokia 808 doesn’t appear to apply video stabilization either, with more judder and wobbles evident than on more recent smartphones.

Photo scores explained

The Nokia 808 PureView achieves a total photo score of 59. In this section, we take a closer look at the image-quality sub-scores that are combined to make up the final DxOMark Mobile Photo score.

Exposure and Contrast (59)

The new DxOMark Mobile testing protocol for Exposure and Contrast is more challenging than before, with new high-contrast outdoor and indoor scenes, as well as HDR measurements in the lab. We are also able to test in extreme low light down to 1 lux, so as to measure which smartphones produce the best exposures in very dark environments.

In well-balanced bright or outdoor lighting conditions, the Nokia 808 is capable of good exposures, with good contrast and color. In lab conditions, photographing a GretagMacbeth ColorChecker®, the Nokia 808 provides good exposures of the white, black, and grey patches in bright light (1000 lux), and slightly underexposed but acceptable results under indoor lighting conditions. However, in extreme low light, images are totally underexposed.

The new DxOMark Mobile testing protocol includes analysis of exposure in extremely low light (1 Lux), where the Nokia 808 fails to record almost any detail, resulting in an unusable image.

Nokia 808 PureView, 1 Lux

Samsung Galaxy S6 Edge, 1 Lux

Apple iPhone 7, 1 Lux

Apple iPhone 6, 1 Lux

The Nokia 808’s dynamic range is also limited, with noticeably under- or overexposed sections recorded in challenging high-contrast scenes. Although some detail was recorded in the bright background when shooting backlit portraits, the faces are totally underexposed, with no discernable details.

Shooting a backlit portrait against a window the Nokia 808 accurately recorded elements of the brighter parts of the scene behind the subject, but the portrait itself was completely under exposed.

Color (64)

The new testing protocol for color includes using a wider range of lighting conditions and color temperatures for better evaluating color accuracy. The Nokia 808 offers good saturation in outdoor conditions. A slight blue color cast is visible, but well within acceptable limits. However, it records strong yellow color casts in low-light conditions and green color casts are visible under fluorescent light.

Some variation in white balance in consecutive shots under all conditions is also apparent, so color accuracy can vary between shots. Strong color shading is visible in all lighting conditions, too, with a noticeable difference in neutral hues between the center and the edges of the frame. Underexposure in extreme low light adds up to strong desaturation.

In good outdoor lighting the Nokia 808 is capable of nice bold color in some shots.

Autofocus (40)

In addition to focus accuracy, the new testing protocol now measures the time required for the device to find focus in a range of different lighting conditions. In bright light, the Nokia 808 offers fairly consistent autofocus performance, capturing a high number of in-focus images.

Having to operate a large lens, autofocus speed is pretty slow, even in bright light. The average delay is in excess of 1000ms (1 second) between tapping to take a picture and the device finding focus. In lower light conditions, this delay is often even longer, and more inconsistent, too, with focusing times well over 1000ms, and sometimes as long as 3000ms, thus exacerbating the problem.

Evaluating the time it takes to focus helps us identify if you can get the right shot at the right time. A short delay of 500ms (1/2 sec) is acceptable, but the Nokia 808 often took over 1000ms to focus.

Detail (49) and Noise (63)

The new DxOMark Mobile testing protocol includes an analysis of detail for both tripod and handheld shots, and for static as well as moving scenes, so as see if the device can detect subject motion and adapt exposure time accordingly for a sharp image.

In bright light, the Nokia 808’s 41MP sensor captures good levels of detail with handheld shots and when using a tripod. Considering the high-resolution chip, however, levels of detail in the best examples from the Nokia 808 aren’t significantly more detailed than newer but lower-resolution devices such as the iPhone 7 or the Samsung Galaxy S6 Edge.

On sharp images without blur the level of detail at 100% recorded by the Nokia 808 is on par with, but not significantly better than, the detail potential of some of the best performing recent devices, as you can see in the 100% crops below.

Nokia 808 PureView, 1000 Lux

Apple iPhone 7, 1000 Lux

Samsung Galaxy S6 Edge, 1000 Lux

Of more concern, however, is the loss of fine detail in indoor and low-light handheld shots and in scenes including subject motion. This is a result of long exposure times, often longer than 1/25 sec, even in relatively good lighting. The Nokia 808 doesn’t adapt its exposure time for subject motion, so moving elements are notably less detailed.

In low light between 5 and 20 lux, the Nokia uses even longer exposure times around 1/10 sec, resulting in a strong loss of detail both in handheld shots and in those containing subject movement. So there’s a large variation in the levels of detail depending on lighting conditions and subject movement in the scene. For handheld shots of static scenes, the Nokia needs good light (100 lux +) and scenes with subject motion require excellent light (1000 lux +) to achieve consistently good detail.

The new Landscape (static scene) and Family (scene with motion) scores for detail help identify the best devices for different subjects. The Nokia 808 struggles to record sharp images in the Family category, even in bright light, and on the static scene in low light below 20 lux.

The larger 1-inch sensor performs pretty well for noise, however, achieving similar results as modern devices such as the Google Pixel and the iPhone 7+. A strong fine luminance noise is evident under low light conditions, but it’s not significantly worse than modern devices, and although handled better in brighter conditions, some noise in areas of uniform color remains visible.

As you can in the 100% crops below, slightly more fine luminance noise is visible in shots taken in extreme low light (1 lux) but it’s not significantly worse than we see on modern devices.

Nokia 808 PureView, 1 Lux

Google Pixel, 1 Lux

Apple iPhone 7 Plus, 1 Lux

Artifacts (49)

A strong flare effect is visible in Nokia 808 images taken under many lighting conditions, although the problem is markedly worse when shooting directly into the sun, which can result in large streaks of light across the frame. We also observed a cyan shift that affects the color of blue skies in many outdoor shots. Vignetting is also visible in indoor and outdoor pictures.

Shooting in the sun or with bright spectral highlights a heavy flare effect is often visible as well as noticeable vignetting causing dark corners.

Flash (70)

A very respectable score here, with the Nokia 808’s Xenon unit ensuring good detail in pictures shot with flash in low-light conditions between 0 to 5 Lux. However, flash portraits both with and without additional lighting sources are somewhat underexposed, with a slight color cast and color shading also visible in many flash pictures.

Zoom (42)

A significant development in the new testing protocol is the analysis of pictures with zoom, allowing us to evaluate the capabilities of recent devices including dual-lens setups for optical zooming. Despite no optical zoom on the single-lens Nokia 808, its larger lens and sensor provide similar resolution to the iPhone 7 Plus’s telephoto lens, thus enabling the 808 to achieve acceptable detail using medium-range digital zoom in bright light. Results display a noticeable improvement over modern single-lens devices such as the Google Pixel. That said, although detail and resolution are pretty good using a modest amount of digital zoom, many artifacts become visible as zoom increases, thus impacting the overall image quality of zoom shots.

As you can see in the 100% crops below, in bright light at medium zoom distance the Nokia 808 provides slightly better resolution than the Google Pixel, but can’t quite complete with the detail of a device with an optical zoom such as the iPhone 7+.

Nokia 808 PureView, 1000 Lux

Google Pixel, 1000 Lux

Apple iPhone 7 Plus, 1000 Lux

In low light, the combination of underexposure, long exposure times, and digital zoom all combine for much lower levels of detail. There’s a noticeable loss of detail using the Nokia 808’s digital zoom, but it`s marginally better than the Google Pixel and not as good as the dual-cam iPhone 7 Plus.

Nokia 808 PureView, 20 Lux

Google Pixel, 20 Lux

Apple iPhone 7 Plus, 20 Lux

Bokeh (25)

Together with optical zoom capabilities, which by itself can enhance a blurred background effect (bokeh), some recent devices offer a Portrait or Bokeh mode that include algorithms that enhance the blur. Responding to this, the new DxOMark protocol includes an analysis and score for bokeh on both single- and dual-lens devices, so you can compare the quality of the background for portraits across all devices.

Although only a single-lens setup, the Nokia 808’s larger sensor and lens produce a mild but pleasant optical bokeh effect. The level of background blur is on par with more recent devices such as the Google Pixel, but isn’t as pronounced as the bokeh we see with smartphones offering a software enhancement. The Nokia 808’s advantage is that the bokeh is more natural in appearance, with no obvious artifacts or the inaccurate masking around the subject that can occur with digital bokeh.

The Nokia 808’s large lens and sensor provides a mild but pleasant background bokeh effect without any unsightly artifacts or inaccurate masking that can occur with software algorithms. Full frame portraits distort facial features however, due to the use of a wide angle lens at close proximity to the subject.

Conclusion

Can the advantage of a large-sensor smartphone camera compete with 5 years of algorithm development? Well, as one of the best-performing devices in 2012, our analysis of the Nokia 808’s performance under the new protocol offers us a good insight into how far recent devices have come, and why we had to re-engineer our tests to keep them relevant. While capable of good exposure and color in low-contrast outdoor conditions, the new and more challenging high-contrast scenes we’’e added to the testing show how vital effective HDR processing has become.

The long exposure times that the Nokia 808 uses also means that capturing good detail on handheld shots is tough, especially in low light. Throw some subject motion in to the mix and the Nokia 808 really starts to struggle. Our new protocol also makes it possible to assess the time to it takes for a device to focus between shots, thus flagging the Nokia 808’s slow autofocus performance. So yes, a tough test for an old device, but the new zoom and bokeh analyses also demonstrate that the Nokia 808 is capable of recording decent resolution with a moderate amount of digital zoom and can render a subtle but natural bokeh effect in portraits.

61
DxOMark mobile
Nokia 808 PureView
60
DxOMark Mobile
photo
65
DxOMark Mobile
video

Pros

  • Good detail in bright light
  • Accurate exposure in bright light
  • Low noise levels

 Pros

  • Low noise levels in all light conditions

Cons

  • Loss of detail in moving elements in the scene
  • Long exposure times in low light lead to blur
  • Limited dynamic range
  • Underexposure in very low light
  • Inaccurate white balance and vignetting with flash
  • Slow autofocus

Cons

  • Strong color casts and color shading
  • Slow autofocus
  • Poor stabilization
  • Judder and wobble effects
  • Daniel R. Pinheiro

    Retest the Lumia 1020, please! And do it with the last firmware update.

    • why have not 950XL test

    • Mbobreal

      It has a smaller sensor than 808

      • AaronTwitterShadwBannd✔TRUMP

        True. 0.83 vs 0.66. The 1020 is higher resolution, though, and has a BSI sensor.

        • Осенок

          1020: 7712*5360.
          808: 7728*5368.

          • AaronTwitterShadwBannd✔TRUMP

            You are right, and I was wrong, on resolution. Thanks. Interestingly, the 808 also has some sort of 3rd party software which allows it to take full sensor photos. Sadly, I know of no such software for the 1020.

  • Sunny Ghosh

    Please test the 1020 & 950XL

  • Popa Nae

    Best ocasion to test Lumia 950. You missed it, but now you can doit. For a lot of people is the best camera in the business (i compared vs CM1, 1020, S8). You need to give it a try! Thanks.

  • huiwa fu

    why have not 950XL test

    • Marko ćituŽ

      they will only piss more people off.

  • 3R

    “Nokia 808 is on par with, but not significantly better than, the detail potential of some of the best performing recent devices, as you can see in the 100% crops below.”

    Do you see your samples there? The 808 has absolutely destroyed both iPhone 7 and the Galaxy in terms of detail and overall image quality.
    It even destroys the iPhone 8 (look at the image I uploaded, comparing your samples), yet the iPhone 8 received a score for Detail of 64, and the 808 received 49. Who are you kidding? And did you seriously just give a score of 70 to 808’s XENON Flash and a score of 84 to iPhone 8’s LED flash?

    The 808 is a camera phone and should be used as such. This means that you should switch to 8MP or 41MP mode when shooting landscape, and not stick to the 5MP mode like a blind goat. If you can turn on iPhone’s HDR, you should be able to switch modes on 808 the same way.
    The 808 is a powerful camera that can produce amazing results IF you use it appropriately, utilize proper settings, do appropriate post-processing and so on. Its not a camera that is supposed to do everything automatically for your convenience. That should be obvious given that its a camera phone designed for photography enthusiasts. Now, I know that your tests need to use default settings for fair comparison, but you should at least point out the above facts.

    If you take a DSLR and use it like an amateur and compare that to the iPhone 8 auto shots, I’m sure you’d give the iPhone a win over there too.

    I can understand that the modern features of recent smartphones are better suited for a wider audience, but any serious photographer should be able to much more appreciate the far superior raw image quality of 808’s large sensor, natural bokeh, Xenon flash, ND filter, etc. You, as a camera-dedicated website should reflect this as well, but you do not. Your analysis is somewhat amateur.

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b00a913743263399623a95803e902b12d9660a0e68eed94a4e54e67e9588feef.png

    • Thitigorn Jiruttigorn

      Agreed. I’m very confused by their conclusion. 808 is clearly the winner on those photos. I understand why it got a very low score since new protocol favored features more than images quality but 49 for detail is tremendously absurd. They didn’t even showed the phone at highest capability (41megapixel).

      • 3R

        Actually, by examining the photos you can see that they in fact did use the 41 MP mode, only they used it in the back-lit portrait photo test, where it would make much more sense to use 5/8MP oversampling mode. For the landscape photo where they should have used Full resolution or at least 8MP, they used 5MP mode. Haha, the test is ridiculous 🙂

        • Thitigorn Jiruttigorn

          Yes, that’s why I’m so confused with the overall result. They didn’t even showed daylight comparison on Exposure and Contrast test. It’s like they only want to highlight the cons. I am fine with the final score to be low since the device is old, but even by today standard I still think this phone is a beast in daylight details.

          • 3R

            Btw. a friend of mine is trying to post a comment pointing out some issues with the test, but DxO keeps deleting his comment (lol) so I’ll post it here for him.

            By mindprison88:

            “Number 1: Who in the right mind shoots landscapes in 5 megapixel mode on the 808 when there’s 8 or 38 available and then decides to use full resolution for a simple indoor portrait shot. This makes no sense at all.

            Number 2: It’s nice how you haven’t set the highest available JPEG quality in the settings and tried to pass your samples as the best examples of what the 808 can do. I’ve compared the file sizes of my own images with your samples at the same resolution and mine are over 2 or 3 times larger in size, which clearly supports my statement.

            Number 3: The second photo where you examine the dynamic range is zoomed in and you’ve forgot to mention it, thus, it’s softer than it should be. Next time you decide to cheat on your tests, delete the EXIF data of your samples and you might get away with it.

            Number 4: What kind of respected photography site undermines the value of a proper xenon flash like you just did? While some of today’s LED flashes can be pretty decent, there’s simply no comparison between them and a Xenon flash. On another note, if you have problem with motion blur in low light, try using the flash and you’ll be surprised how different your results would be. Since one of the biggest benefits of having a proper flash is its ability to freeze motion, it’s sad how you’ve decided to give it such a low rating without mentioning such an important fact.”

          • Good scores are up for grabs to the highest bidder, my friend 🙂

          • Shah

            Exactly!!! Such a shame !

          • flodxomark

            Hello, sorry that the comment was not publish. We’ll do the best to solve the issue if it happens again.

          • Zerstörer Romero

            well,he might in love with his puny sensor cameraphone ahem…Iphone….Samsung.He doesn’t even know how to use Xenon flash.

          • Hoang Son Nguyen Dien

            Shame on DXO 🙁

          • flodxomark

            Dear Hoang, we did reply to the reader about the messages which haven’t been published. Regards

      • eternal

        https://imgur.com/a/CWw46 Another joke !!!

    • eternal

      Detail 49. Are you fucking KIDDING me? You guys are joke!!!

    • I agree with you.

    • Raven Ridge

      I totally agree 3R
      Example of a picture i took with my 808 a few years ago.
      Those that know photography would mostly likely understand how I took this picture.
      https://imgur.com/a/3DKHh

  • D. Van Nostrand

    “Nokia 808 is on par with, but not significantly better than”. Why even say such things because it means you know the 808 IS better, but you just refuse to actually acknowledge it directly.

    I also find it interesting that you retest the 808, and it’s now at the BOTTOM of your short list of rankings.

  • Brian Haugen

    You’re getting a lot of hate. I just want to thank you for testing this older, but important, phone. You could have just tested new phones, but you’re going back and testing some reference phones like the 808 PureView.

    • Raven Ridge

      Brian, using the 808 in auto-mode is quite stup1d.
      Nokia 808 was a phone designed for photography enthusiasts and using it like a proper camera is the only way to get the best results.
      I don’t know if they mentioned it in this article but the Nokia 808 is the only phone that has an ND Filter which allowed me to often take very good pictures in very bright situations where a lot of times the HDR modes in modern smartphones fails.
      The most important thing about a camera is the sensor and the 808 has a tremendous sensor even by today’s phone standards. What it lacks is in modern software features.

      • stan511

        Nokia N8 has also ND filter 🙂

        • Осенок

          First ND-filter on Nokia smartphones appeared in N73. Then he performed the mechanical shutter function in addition to ND.

  • Alex Norris

    DXO, very low score for the great cameraphone… Especially when you see 100%crops. XZP has 83 and 808pw 61, really..? )
    https://pp.userapi.com/c841527/v841527666/24fee/r7n-g432s-A.jpg
    PS. How the camera with excellent detail, should be stay much lower in your rank, than the camera with the sh*tty details ??? Explain to me please?

    • eternal

      Haha… there is no explanation

    • AaronTwitterShadwBannd✔TRUMP

      Oooh. Pretty painting. What software did you use?

  • jaco_lee

    Seems like a biased score.

    • AaronTwitterShadwBannd✔TRUMP

      They don’t dare reveal that phone manufacturers are selling super-cheap cameras in their phones and billing them as totally awesome.

  • Milind Sinha

    Most unfair score you could ever see. Infact they’ve give higher scores to phones like Moto g and some Nubia phones and even Amazon firephone which even common people can tell in one look that they aren’t even close to what 808 can do.

  • Ridiculous. “Let’s test a 40 MP camera with 2x larger image sensor than the competition, but let’s use the 5 MP setting and see how the pictures look against 12 MP cameras.” Also, if you turn on HDR mode for other phones, why don’t you turn it on for this one? Apple paid you more than Nokia? If you’re supposed to be objective, shouldn’t you test every phone in a way that produces the best results in the scenario you’re testing it in? If a camera has tons of manual settings that make a huge difference in your test scores, why don’t you use those settings? Instead of looking like photography experts, this makes you look like people who are holding a camera for the first time in their lives. “Oh well, we just poked around in the camera app pressing random buttons and these are the pictures that we got.” Do you test DSLR’s using the “Auto” mode, and then take some portrait pictures in the “Sport” mode just to add to the insult? This is the first and last time I’m visiting this site. DxOMark is a joke.

    • AaronTwitterShadwBannd✔TRUMP

      Same. I actually was visiting to see if there was something I could find to replace my aging Lumia 1020 with. 12MP?! ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MINDS?! 12?!!!!

      • Яша Пестерев

        I think, they intentionally have messed up with result

  • Vishnu Yannam

    lol
    pe

  • Яша Пестерев

    If we open first photo “Zoom in low light” , we will see the name of the photo “AppleiPhone7Plus_Tripod_Photo_20Lux_SME_A_Tripod.png”, not 808. How so?
    Nokia 808 is the third photo, not first.
    Its error?

    • AaronTwitterShadwBannd✔TRUMP

      I think you’re right. Apple has a lot more baked-in processing of their images.

    • Hoang Son Nguyen Dien

      true 😀

  • S.H.U.R.O.
    • AaronTwitterShadwBannd✔TRUMP

      LOL

    • ananve

      I can see the differences even from my phone. The detail on note 8 was all fake with over sharpening. Well, if you compare it with full resolution 808, it would be done for.

  • AaronTwitterShadwBannd✔TRUMP

    “On sharp images without blur the level of detail at 100% recorded by the Nokia 808 is on par with, but not significantly better than, the detail potential of some of the best performing recent devices, as you can see in the 100% crops below.”
    WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH YOUR EYES?! WHAT?!!! I loaded all three into Gimp, and I scaled them to the highest res, to match, and compared them. No comparison. Just no comparison. The higher resolution one is vastly superior. VASTLY. The iPhone one looks like trash. The Samsung one looks pretty OK, but the 808 looks like a medium format camera.

    True, performance matters, not just high resolution in bright light. But cellphone manufacturers are selling people trash. It’s pathetic. $1000 for something that underperforms the effort of a forgotten failed company? That’s just ripping people off, Apple & Samsung!

    (Side Note: similar results may be had with the Nokia 1020 as with the Nokia 808. The 808 has a larger though non-BSI sensor, color rendition is a bit different*, and the lens is a bit different. iirc)

    *The 1020 can get wonky with oranges and yellows

  • Marko ćituŽ

    WOW, just wow Dx0, failed again. Where are your eyes ppl?
    Just read the coments and see comparisons people did them-self!
    Dx0 is fraud. and this showed how big they are

  • Shah

    Haha this camera review is a joke !! No way can one be so biased!! Not good with jokes after all, are you :?/

    • Ekto Sknot

      He is not just biased, he is a sellout. We do not need a crappy sellout in the world of photography. This joke of a humans destroy everything good in this world. Money is what stays written on their forehead, shame is what should be written all around their life.

  • Ekto Sknot

    What is this website? What are this scores? In fact, who is this idiot? Seriously man? Iphone 7 better then nokia 808? In what world? The imaginary world of doctor Parnassus? Go suck some apple man, you deserve the Pulitzer prize for deceive and mockery. The world of ignorance and money. Just stop doing it man, since today, you, my friend, are not trusted anymore;). I hope you go broke in a matter of days, sellouts do not deserve to own a photography site.

  • stan511

    You can sell your ipaid story to the isheep users but not to the people who like real photography.

    • flodxomark

      Hello, be sure that all mobiles we test are treated exactly the same way. We have made our DxOMark scoring system with one strict goal: develop and implement a robust test protocols which can be accurately repeated time after time. Regards

      • Zerstörer Romero

        Sorry,but I don’t agree with your kind of test.As Stan511 said I agree with him.

      • Яша Пестерев

        Sorry, but why first photo in 20lux not 808, its IPhone 7. Why Note 8 in detail have 65, and 808 have 49, but 808 in detail better than Note 8.
        https://imgur.com/a/CWw46

  • abhijeet_a_a

    Im not a professional photographer but see my photos taken by 808, don’t forgot to see cover pic on this page, I own iphone, Android,lumia and nothing compares 808 in camera, your review is totally biased, and you don’t know how to use 808, some of yours points given for bokeh, zoom are just stupidity, 808 can take very good pictures up to 10x zoom in camera pro app, and for bokeh try using some zoom 808 will produce superb bokeh
    http://www.facebook.com/abhi43photography

  • ananve

    This article is an embarrassment and it shows how DxO mark has become a joke of the industry.

  • B_Justa

    People. Use better cameras and lenses first. See real world results, and then think.
    808 sux really really bad

    • Осенок

      People who really use 808 see that their results are much better than in this review.
      And I do not agree with you. With the correct settings from 808, you can draw a lot of useful material.

      • B_Justa

        808 was good in its time. now phones have PDAF, 2 camera setups, better lenses, and better auto modes.

        The tests here might not be done with manual mode, and their scoring system clearly indicates that.
        The overall score is not an average of all the scores, some things matter more than others according to Dxomark.

        So, whats wrong with 808, and what it does worse than today’s cameras-
        – slow AF
        – close up focus range is longer than most cameraphones
        – no OIS.
        Handheld images with slow shutter speeds turn out to be blurry. Lumia 920 was a way better low light camera back then. Even for video, Lumia 920 had very good stability.

        – wrong WB or some color casts in auto mode
        (these two issues were very common in Nokia phones those days, but I guess Lumia 1020 had more issues with these than any other Nokia)
        – less background blur for portraits (although others have fake blur, still DXO thinks that counts. If I wanted blur, I’d go for a DSLR)
        – small pixel size than today’s smartphones, the real pixel size
        – No 4k video
        – no slow motion video

        What 808 does right-
        – low noise
        Thanks to noise compression. 38MP images down scaled to 5mp. And they named it Pixel Oversampling.
        -lossless zoom
        -41 Megapixels!

        Compared to today’s smartphones, 808 has only two things in its favor, low noise in oversampled images and 38MP images.
        38MP images are only good in good light and low ISO.

        Good photos can be achieved in good light, but you need a tripod for general low light shots, or you have to manually set the shutter speed above 1/30 at which point at acceptable ISO the image is darker than the competition(Not iPhone, it sucks). You go in post to increase the exposure of the RAW file, you find noise. So low light handheld is a no-go.
        Low light on tripod, I’d pick up no other cameraphone.

        But the thing is that 808 has a great sensor, but it misses out on a lot of things related to photography.
        Sure you can use a tripod for stability, or a steadicam for videos like Jay from MyNokiaBlog did, if you don’t know that blog and that guy, I’m not sure if you know Nokia phones. You can use a gimbal for videos, those are being used on phones with OIS, but for those who want to shoot handheld videos, no OIS is still a problem.

        808 may have the best sensor in cameraphones, but the complete package isn’t that great.

  • Mariusz

    your test is a joke, maybe I understand you: Nokia didnt pay you for this test like Google did:). Shame on you