[kryten]

I know the details and understand pixel oversampling etc. In the real world they produce acceptable photos for the type of device but it is nothing special and definitely over-marketed.

I used an 808 for a week when they came out. Wishy washy colours, constant over exposure and distortion due to the pissy little lens. Not what they were promoting.

Whilst I compare this to a DSLR, a cheaper compact can do a better job of being a camera.

Personally I drag a DSLR around everywhere with me but that's because I started doing that sort of stuff before we had mobile phones and have developed an appreciation of quality prints.

[benjamincburns]

> Wishy washy colours, constant over exposure and distortion due to the pissy little lens.

With the exception of maybe the distortion I'd chalk that up to crappy dynamic nonlinear exposure heuristics trying to boost dynamic range. For an example, take a look at the "HDR mode" in this guy's datasheet: http://www.aptina.com/products/image_sensors/mt9v034c12stc/

[kryten]

To be honest I think exposure was the software as you could reliably underexpose it and get the result you wanted.

Colours, probably dynamic range as you state. Looking at the curves for a pure white photo suggests range of blue was a little tight which is what made it look like out of date Kodak ektachrome on a good day. That may be software again bit I'm suspicious as the sensor on my D3100 doesn't exhibit that problem. Perhaps its better quality control.

[benjamincburns]

Blue curves being off says they probably did a poor job on the transmittance of their blue filter material. There is also a trend toward oversaturation in cheap consumer cameras. Makes the consumer say "oh, it's so colorful!"

With cheap sensors the name of the game is always "get it close, and find a way to hack it so most people won't know."

[msh]

But you can't have a dslr in your pocket. This might be the best pocket able camera ever.