"Samsung Galaxy S III vs Nokia 808 PureView"

C

ClintX

Banned
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
496
Reaction score
0
So anyway, just out of curiosity I decided to search for some comparisons between the SIII and the 808. I did so fully expecting to find most sites singing the praises of the SIII, after all the internet is overrun with US blogs/sites and I am fully aware of their attitude towards Symbian.

The first thing that interested me was the number of "Samsung Galaxy S III vs Nokia 808 PureView" hits that came up on Google. I expected a few but I hardly thought there'd be many sites even bothering to do the comparison.

The second point, which I actually found extremely humorous, was the obvious bias shown by many of the sites. It really seems that it is tough to find an objective review nowadays.... here is one example from Geekaphone :

Clipboard0176.jpg


Seriously!? I don't care how biased you are towards Samsung or Android there is no chance in hell that the SIII even comes anywhere near matching the 808 Pureview camera abilities!

Needless to say I immediately disregarded anything further that this website offered....
 
What can the 808 do that the s3 can't.

I will go check the picture quality of the 808 shots now at gsmarena, but I doubt the extra MPs will give a much better picture.

How is the low light pictures on the 808, I assume it will be awesome. 10 vs 10 is probably not that fair,but look what their comments are. I don't think they were looking for a camera replacement in their criteria.
 
Here we go again.
This is becoming the same as reading the usual bickering between apple and Android. Who cares? Seriously.
If a phone comes out with features that I need, then that's what I'll get. Regardless of whether it's Symbian, ios, Android or BB.
It's a personal choice. If it works for you, great. If it doesn't, it doesn't necessarily mean it's a piece of shlt.
Fail thread.
 
phoneJunky said:
What can the 808 do that the s3 can't.

I will go check the picture quality of the 808 shots now at gsmarena, but I doubt the extra MPs will give a much better picture.
Click to expand...

You are right, the megapixels alone don't equate to superior picture quality but the way those pixels are used (oversampling) do indeed. But if we ignore something like picture quality that could be subjective (hell, I have seen people fawning over super saturated images), what about the 4x lossless zoom in 1080p video recording mode (6x at 720p), or the 4x for still images, or the proper Xenon flash which will unquestionably give you better low light images than an LED.

I don't think they were looking for a camera replacement in their criteria.
Click to expand...

It seems to be the only section that refers to photos so if they have omitted the actual camera comparison then it again shows the bias :)
 
Sl8er said:
Here we go again.
This is becoming the same as reading the usual bickering between apple and Android. Who cares? Seriously.
If a phone comes out with features that I need, then that's what I'll get. Regardless of whether it's Symbian, ios, Android or BB.
Click to expand...


Dude, a small bit of advice for you, if you are not at all interested in the 808 then there is a simple solution.... when the thread title CLEARLY explains the thread contents and you are not interested, THEN DO NOT CLICK ON IT! Easy hey? :)

And just to add, this was NOT about comparing the two phones. I had assumed it would be fairly apparent that it was more about the distinct bias that supposedly objective reviews carry. The 808 has a lethal camera so we will just ignore it altogether and give the outright win the the SIII

It's a personal choice. If it works for you, great. If it doesn't, it doesn't necessarily mean it's a piece of shlt.
Fail thread.
Click to expand...

Oh, and your logic here sucks a little in the context of a forum. If we all kept our opinions to ourselves this would be a mighty boring place. Now run off and go and read your favourite Android or iOS forum, ok ;)
 
Last edited:
ClintX said:
Dude, a small bit of advice for you, if you are not at all interested in the 808 then there is a simple solution.... when the thread title CLEARLY explains the thread contents and you are not interested, THEN DO NOT CLICK ON IT! Easy hey? :)

And just to add, this was NOT about comparing the two phones. I had assumed it would be fairly apparent that it was more about the distinct bias that supposedly objective reviews carry. The 808 has a lethal camera so we will just ignore it altogether and give the outright win the the SIII
Click to expand...

Well sure, if a phone was just a camera and nothing but a camera. But it's not. If the camera is so important to you, then just invest in a camera and carry it with you. I'm sure you get small enough cameras to keep on your person -with the same type of quality? (I'm assuming, because I know nothing about cameras.)

I saw your other thread and that was pretty much a fail thread as well. And don't get me wrong, because I myself am a Nokia fan. But to come out and say "mine's bigger than yours, because (fill in some lame ass feature)" is just juvenile.

Like I said, each to his own. The features that you need in a phone doesn't make it "better" than something else. But you're right, if I don't like a thread, I shouldn't be posting in it. My apologies. :o
As you were....
 
Oh dear, poor old Sl8er is still just not comprehending and is going off on his rant.... shame.

Dude, this thread was NOT about me insisting the 808 is a far superior phone. It was about me showing how bias clearly affects some sites comparisons. The one area the 808 is a clear winner is the camera yet they give it as a draw. And this was seen on many sites depending on where their bias lay, and not just as regards the camera and not just in favour of the SIII. I merely used one example I thought most would comprehend... but it appears my mistake was insinuating the SIII could possibly be inferior in any department. That's seems a sore point for some.

By the way, I know in kiddie world telling someone they "fail" leads to them crying and never posting again on a public forum but your opinion actually means very little to me if it is not on topic and substantiated :)
 
ClintX said:
Oh dear, poor old Sl8er is still just not comprehending and is going off on his rant.... shame.

Dude, this thread was NOT about me insisting the 808 is a far superior phone. It was about me showing how bias clearly affects some sites comparisons. The one area the 808 is a clear winner is the camera yet they give it as a draw. And this was seen on many sites depending on where their bias lay....

By the way, I know in kiddie world telling someone they "fail" leads to them crying and never posting again on a public forum but your opinion actually means very little to me if it is not on topic and substantiated :)
Click to expand...

heh, heh, heh
You sure told me.
 
ClintX said:
Um, what exactly are we laughing at here? I feel a little bad because I didn't even giggle a little never mind laugh out loud...
Click to expand...

With a camera of that sort of resolution, it should have been released with a decent resolution screen. My old HTC Desire even tramps it.
 
How big is the CMOS of the camera? Can't be full frame, a Canon 5D is only 22MP and it has a full frame CMOS.
 
Fudzy said:
With a camera of that sort of resolution, it should have been released with a decent resolution screen. My old HTC Desire even tramps it.
Click to expand...

I create media with my phone. I consume it on the 42" flatscreen or, if I am really desperate, on my 17" laptop screen. But again we are heading off topic here....

PS The SIII was rightfully given the clear win on the screen front
 
ClintX said:
Oh dear, poor old Sl8er is still just not comprehending and is going off on his rant.... shame.

Dude, this thread was NOT about me insisting the 808 is a far superior phone. It was about me showing how bias clearly affects some sites comparisons. The one area the 808 is a clear winner is the camera yet they give it as a draw. And this was seen on many sites depending on where their bias lay, and not just as regards the camera and not just in favour of the SIII. I merely used one example I thought most would comprehend... but it appears my mistake was insinuating the SIII could possibly be inferior in any department. That's seems a sore point for some.

By the way, I know in kiddie world telling someone they "fail" leads to them crying and never posting again on a public forum but your opinion actually means very little to me if it is not on topic and substantiated :)
Click to expand...

To be honest I havn't bothered looking since the 808 doesn't interest me in the least but perhaps what you are calling bias is in fact reality, if their were only one reviewer saying that they were tied then sure they could easily be accused of bias but for all {or many} of them to do so... Have you had both phones?? Have you taken photos with both phones?? Have you done a side by side comparison of images without the images being compressed so that they can be uploaded to the net?? I must assume the reviewers have and while some may be biased I refuse to believe they all are...
 
The pure view no doubt has an amazing camera, but I really wish Nokia did a bit more for it before releasing it.

The lumia series like the 900 has a really good design which should have been used on this phone. For an amazing camera, Nokia should have also backed it up with a bigger and higher resolution screen. It would be really amazing to view the high res photos on a screen which would support them. While Symbian has really matured over the years, I feel they should have gone with something like windows. While the camera is something a few years ahead, I can't help but feel disappointed that they supported it with outdated software.

Taking pics with an 8mp camera results in the pics being around 4mb. There's no doubt that the photos on this device will be much bigger, which is why Nokia should have included more memory. 16 gigs onboard space is simply not enough for a high res camera like this. More ram and a higher processor would definitely make picture processing much more snappier.

A higher capacity battery would have been nice to ensure the device lasts an entire day.

While the camera clearly surpasses that of the SIII, many people will still end up buying the SIII because of the all round user experience. Prettier interface, better screen, web browsing etc make it a really attractive deal. Pricing is also a big factor.

Taking the above points into account, I feel that Nokia would have had a really killer device....but it's just my 2c
 
MattyW said:
To be honest I havn't bothered looking since the 808 doesn't interest me in the least but perhaps what you are calling bias is in fact reality, if their were only one reviewer saying that they were tied then sure they could easily be accused of bias but for all {or many} of them to do so... Have you had both phones?? Have you taken photos with both phones?? Have you done a side by side comparison of images without the images being compressed so that they can be uploaded to the net?? I must assume the reviewers have and while some may be biased I refuse to believe they all are...
Click to expand...

Are you telling me you have seen multiple reviews stating that the SIII camera is at least the equal of the 808 Pureview? Please share the links as I would love to see what they are saying. Most manufacturers are yet to reach the standard set by the Nokia N8, never mind the 808!

And even ignoring the multitude of other reasons as to why the 808 camera is superior, none of the competition bothers with a proper xenon flash! Yes, many argue that LED is better for low light video recording.... well the 808 Pureview has both! That alone should be worth bonus points in the camera department.

I forgive your comments as you did admit that you have no interest in the 808 so you have not done much reading on it I would assume.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X