Shared publicly  - 
Check out the first snaps taken by Nokia's 41-megapixel 808 PureView phone.
Raja Natarajan's profile photoNam Nguyen's profile photoIzzat Aziz's profile photoNii Andrews's profile photo
Looking forward to when they put it into one of their upcoming Windows Phones. Good proof of concept though.
Why 41 megapixels?
Are you planning to blow up a single photo big enough to cover the Empire State Building?
Nokia (Lumina) has not been illustriousness enough so trying very hard to express itself in another form :) Hey you can't beat Instagr-am.
+Bob Rosenberg it's not the size of the file they are going for,,, it's the detail. I can't find it at the moment but there is another article that explains the use of this camera. It just gives great detail and you'll be able to zoom in with the same great detail. The file sizes are still relativity small. If I can find the article, I'll post it here :)

Edit: Here is another article explaining how it drops the 41 megapixel down to 5 which gives it it's awesome pictures. You still have the ability to take 41 megapixels if you like lol but in any case the article explains how it works.
+Ron Norgaard Understood. There's still no need for so many pixels.

I sometimes shoot handheld with a 2.2 megapixel camera: I get crisply defined lines, and I blow them up to 8x12 without pixilation.
From what I've seen/read the final file is only about 5MB in size. It has so many pixels for two reasons: 1-To have more data to use its automagic compression on and 2-To allow you the ability to actually get a good result when you use the zoom. The extra megapixels make up for the lack of optical zoom on phones.
Thanks for the link, +Ron Norgaard . I didn't see that you posted that earlier. That's one of the articles I was referring to.
Saying that you don't need 41 megapixel is like saying that a car has too much horsepower. Well, we all know that there is no such thing. ;)
+Ricardo Almeida I agree with you - I'd also like to have a Bugatti Veyron, but I'll get along without one for a while.

As to pixels, if you are planning to take one exposure and blow it up to cover the entire Empire State Building (!), perhaps you need 41 megapixels, else you don't.
+Bob Rosenberg, but why is the focus on necessity? You don't need, you take advantage. You don't need a microwave or a washing machine. You have alternatives but it's better to use those better instruments. You don't need 41 megapixels, but why wouldn't you take advantage of the improvements in this field of technology?
+Ricardo Almeida & +Ron Norgaard I to believe they have gone too far. My objection is based on what I posted quite early in this thread.

If you want to blow up a photo to cover the side of a building, get lots of pixels. However, I sometimes shoot handheld with a 2.2 megapixel camera: I get crisply defined lines, and I blow them up to 8x12 without pixilation. I rarely go bigger than 8*12, so it seems to me that, 2 or 3 megapixels is fine. Your mileage may vary.
+Ricardo Almeida A car that is overloaded with horsepower can result in a potentially deadly driving experience. Similarly, cramming 41 megapixels on a sensor that isn't even DSLR-sized will have negative consequences. You get poorer quality, and especially much more image noise as each pixel gasps for light. Now, if only they had a bigger sensor...oh heck, why don't they make a real camera with a built-in smartphone? :-)
+Roma Khudoleyev I wasn't thinking about cars with crazy aftermarket alterations. :p but even on those situations, you have the ability to drive safe. Getting back to this non issue, I think that for the regular user it will good to have access to this new technology. ;)
Yes, I agree that it will be awesome to have the pixel equivalent of a high-end camera in your pocket. I'm just pointing out that cramming a normally concrete-block-sized camera system into a itty bitty box will have some compromises on quality.
Add a comment...