>
New Topic
>
Reply<
Esato Forum Index
>
Manufacturer Discussion >
Nokia
> Nokia 808 PureView Thread And Discussion
Bookmark topic
What's the front camera like on the 808?? What's the res and does it record video too??
--
Posted: 2013-03-19 01:17:00
Edit :
Quote
shitty
http://www.allaboutsymbian.co[....]t_Camera_808_gives_easy_bu.php
--
Posted: 2013-03-19 02:09:06
Edit :
Quote
Ok
--
Posted: 2013-03-19 03:07:00
Edit :
Quote
against the best compact camera
RX100
808
RX100
808
--
Posted: 2013-04-05 06:58:48
Edit :
Quote
All brilliant pictures imo. Hard to make a choice on camera quality alone without viewing at 100%, but id choose the 808.
[ This Message was edited by: etaab on 2013-04-06 19:35 ]
--
Posted: 2013-04-05 10:09:28
Edit :
Quote
It's easy to make a decision based on quality alone, the RX100 produces images much more detailed than the 808 due to it having much larger resolution while retaining clarity and noise free images as good as the 808, so RX100 wins its just common sense really. But when it comes to overall compactness and of course mobility 808 would be the preference. Anyway the two are for different types of users anyway, and at smaller resolutions, there will hardly be any noticeable difference.
--
Posted: 2013-04-05 11:33:04
Edit :
Quote
@cu015170: you're forgetting Canon G1x and RX1 dude, Rx100 is hardly the best compact camera at all >_>
nevertheless judging by the resized pics, I'll give the win to 808 for corner to corner sharpness, however RX100 (without a question) is by far superior in so many ways (faster lens, depth of field, optical Zoom, manual mode, higher guide mode for flash and burst shooting) for its purpose
--
Posted: 2013-04-05 12:37:57
Edit :
Quote
The g1x is hardly compact/pocketable, and the RX10 costs over $2500 for some reason..
In terms of price and compactness, nothing comes closer to the 808 than the RX100. In terms of quality.. the rx100 is a bit better, but not by much really.
--
Posted: 2013-04-05 18:11:27
Edit :
Quote
On 2013-04-05 18:11:27, cu015170 wrote:
The g1x is hardly compact/pocketable, and the RX10 costs over $2500 for some reason..
In terms of price and compactness, nothing comes closer to the 808 than the RX100. In terms of quality.. the rx100 is a bit better, but not by much really.
Yes those two are larger, pricier, cameras but you can't deny the fact that they're the benchmark for all compact cameras especially the RX1. besides if picture quality (JPEG) is the only thing to compare 808 surely comes very close, no question about that, but remember those stuffs are designed for more than just taking high quality images. besides it's pretty dumb to put the RX100 along side 808 and compare them as they are of completely different species. besides I'd personally get the RX100 anytime if all I ever wanted was taking high quality pictures. no offense there mate
my apologies for the off topic post, but personally I think people should stop comparing these two as they serve different purposes, by which either of them should do the job better depending on the user's needs/skills and preference
[ This Message was edited by: razec on 2013-04-06 17:53 ]
--
Posted: 2013-04-06 18:51:43
Edit :
Quote
There are both consumer imaging devices.. I don't see why you wouldn't compare them
But yes, completely different segment, different user base overall. If I had to pick 3 devices for an imaging arsenal, it would be:
808 - always with me. To have that kind of imaging power in your pocket at all times is priceless for an amateur photographer.
RX100 - just to change it up a bit, experiment, zoom, etc.
Nikon D800 - 50mm 1.4 lens, and something longer for landscapes. I would use it to shoot sport events, long exposure, etc.
--
Posted: 2013-04-06 19:53:07
Edit :
Quote
New Topic
Reply
