In article , Peter
scribeth thus

Mark wrote

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 18:51:41 +0100, Peter
wrote:


Mark wrote

Sorry but I find that hard to believe. AFAIK it's just not possible
to fit a good lens in a phone-sized object.

I've not tried the Nokia 808 but would it really be better than a
small system camera (which would also fit into a pocket)?

See e.g. http://peter-ftp.co.uk/808/

Nice pics. It's hard to predict what they would have been like if
they were taken with a £400 camera though.

I have got a fair selection of pics of the same scene taken with the
808 and the Canon S95 (£360 a year or two ago) and the 808 outclasses
it very obviously.

I also have taken some comparison shots with a Pentax K5 and those are
better, as one would jolly well expect given the K5 body alone was
£1000 when it came out, but not massively better.

In fact I would sell the K5 now, if it wasn't for the much greater
flexibility / control (shutter speed etc) and much better low light
performance. For "easy" targets in daylight I would not bother with a
DSLR at all.

The raw camera in the 808 is awesome and if Nokia bothered to deliver
some decent control (AV, TAV, M, etc) - which they won't because they
can't be bothered - they would have an amazing product whose only
weakness would be the low light performance.

Let me see if I can take a pic with all three...

Would you mind telling me where the countryside pics were taken?

The latitude and longitude should be in the EXIF data

As is sadly all too often the case nowadays! And google trawls the net
and picks up all photos it finds with GPS data in the EXIF header and
drops them all over google maps...

It's in Sussex, mostly, I think. North of Brighton.

No doubt about it England's is still in most parts a fine looking
country..

You can see some differences like the blue fringing on the extremities
of the top of the 808 pix but all in thats very good...
--
Tony Sayer