Nokia squeezes 41mp camera into latest smartphone

[Simon]

Nokia will be including a 41-megapixel - yes, forty one - camera in its latest smartphone, the Nokia 808 PureView.

The camera also sports Carl Zeiss optics with a maximum aperture of f/2.4 and is accompanied by a single Xenon flash. The sensor technology, which Nokia said was "inspired by satellite imaging technology", is the highest seen on any smartphone today, and higher than most consumer DSLRs.

Images produced by the new camera are 38-megapixels in size, and in demos showed less noise than we'd expected and a lot of detail and punch.

The phone can also produce lower resolution images (5 megapixels) with more dynamic range using a technique Nokia calls 'pixel oversampling' – condensing the information of seven pixels into one.

Oddly, though, Nokia has not chosen to squeeze its mind-boggling new camera technology into its latest Windows Phone handset, but into a smartphone sporting the new flavour of Symbian – Nokia Belle.

Read more: http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/373138/nokia-squeezes-41mp-camera-into-latest-smartphone

[Glenn]

I saw this yesterday, do you really need a 41megapixel camera on a phone?

[Lance]

Nope. You don't even need that many on a top end DSLR!

[Niall]

If Nokia think this is the way forward in the market, they will be going under very fast. If you have an excellent sensor and lens on it, then 8-12 would be more than enough, and that's an understatement. How many people taking camera phone photos do you know that will be getting their images printed in a stupidly large format? Unless you've got a sensor that can actually use the MP increase, and an ACTUAL NEED for it, then it's totally pointless. In real photography terms you're entering medium format reasoning for that sort of size

[Simon]

I agree, it seems ridiculous to me too.

[zappaDPJ]

While it does seem overkill and I freely admit to having little knowledge about cameras, isn't the pixel oversampling the key? The ability to present the best possible image at any resolution?

[Niall]

Not really. You don't need a massive sensor for the best possible picture. That's down to what the sensor actually does, and more importantly the lens. If you've got a cr*p lens, no matter what's behind it won't help you take a good photo. Then the main thing is the person behind the camera.

You only need to look at professional cameras, and compare the current top end Canon cameras that cost £5000, and then look at say, the 600D that cost £600. If you base it purely on marketing hype, the 600D looks better. Also, if you look at the older pro cameras, their spec is terrible compared to now, and just look at the photos. They're miles better than anything that a camera phone will take, due to all the above factors.

[Rik]

I'm another 'this is plain stupid' vote. The lens will never do the sensor justice, it's absolutely pointless.

[Technical Ben]

I saw this yesterday, do you really need a 41megapixel camera on a phone?

I guess not. The benefit is a working digital zoom (IE a 5mp image can have a real digital zoom with no loss of quality) or low light photographs etc.
However, I wonder if it's a 10mp sensor with oversampling? Is there any talk on what the sensor actually is to solve that one?

[talos]

I hear they're putting phones in cameras these days 

[Rik]

 

Good point, Bob.

[Niall]

Funny you should mention that. The Canon 5DmkIII has just started getting more solid reports as the announcement is due in the next couple of days. Looks like that'll be a full HD video 50/60 fps with rumoured hdmi. Although the HDMI seems to be guesswork at the mo. Still, one thing seems to have been confirmed, and that's the price. One post I've just read says they've pre ordered it at $3499 (although pre announcement, they're probably talking BS) which would mean it's £3499. So new camera is £3499, the 24-70 is £2299, there's a new flagship flash being announced with the camera, so you're probably looking at £500 judging by the huge price leap in the 24-70 lens. Then there's the new battery grip, memory cards and batteries.

So that's that. Barring a lottery win, I won't be going full frame any time soon

http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/03/5d-mark-iii-full-spec-list/

This just popped up. Looks nice. Anyone got any spare cash?

[esh]

The image quality is dependent upon pixel pitch, not the actual number of pixels. Larger sized pixels mean a larger full-well capacity (ie. they can gather more light), which basically means you have a much greater signal-to-noise ratio, since you always have a quantity of dark current in these sensors (this is dependent a lot upon the quality of the silicon).

[Technical Ben]

Interesting Esh. I always thought more light is better. Although, they can filter out some of the noise with software now. In fact, they have recently developed a clever "1 Pixel sensor" device that can take pictures with nothing more than a singe pixel detector! Those clever boffins.

http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-01-clever-math-enable-high-quality-d.html

(I did not understand anything in the video. * )





*actually I did, but only a little.

[Niall]

One thing I could have mentioned is the noise on my two canon cameras. The 30D had a lower mp count than the 60D, but the noise is far more manageable in post processing with the 30D. On a 60D image it's really in there, so it takes a lot more fiddling about post production to clear. In some cases I've had to add processing effects to mask it. It's quite annoying really. This is one of the many reasons I was waiting for the 5Dmkiii to be announced (which it was during the night actually) http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/03/introducing-the-canon-5d-mark-iii/#more-9102

[pctech]

I'll stick with my 6.1 MP Nikon D50 DSLR.

The Ray does have an 8 MP camera on it too.