Hmm, its long I read a review in full, and just because this carries the NOKIA name.
In any case, first effort from them, good. But that doesn't mean you guys should be so defending of them, in some portion you guys absolutely were! Display is good, but you mentioned is better than iPhone 7's? How? Certainly not in colour accuracy! Camera? Good. But the phone costs pretty much a hefty amount, and still no competition with something like Pixel or U11, which were not included in the comparison! Low light shots were pretty bad to be honest, still much better than the garbage overpriced Sonys.
Now the really excellent things, the build quality and the really lovely and simple design. Love them. And that loudspeaker loudness, class leading it seems, and obviously the mentioned audio quality in video recordings.
I for one will surely keep an eye on the next Nokia releases. I really hope the OLD NOKIA quality is back and will continue to remain so in the future. But this phone at this price, sorry not possible to recommend over something like a Pixel, and if you are okay with skinned iterations then S7 or G6.
really? no mention of its closest competitor, the mi6? both even have similar form factor at 5.2-5.3"
Anonymous, 26 Aug 2017"High-end ZEISS lenses in front of all three sensors" Really? No, that's just marketing nonse... moreThat is how smartphone manufacturers earn from sales. If there is some kind of license from a very well known company, people would think it is a very good smartphone, same goes to other brands. Idk why HUAWEI would put Leica lens but still produces colours that are not as vibrant as other smartphone manufacturers. If someone asks me whether I should give this smartphone a smash or a pass, I would say smash for the camera and pass for the design. Mainly because the back design looks like NOKIA 5 and not as sleek and stealth as NOKIA 6's design. That smartphone looks more like a tank than this one
Everyone here has a problem with the camera but I'm not happy with the large bezel and bad screen to body ratio of the Nokia 8
Sounds good generally speaking; high-end performance, good build quality, good screen, doesn't play obsolesce game with the headphone jack, quite good battery life and a promise of rapid OS updates, OK camera. Not a master of anything particular but no major weaknesses either.
The Nokia 8's camera is vastly underwhelming, especially when compared to the standards set by the 8-series phones of the Symbian era. It is disappointing to see it bested by the Nokia 6 in the photo comparison tests in both good and low light scenarios, even with a ISO advantage in the latter. Had the 6 been given the same OIS treatment as the 8, there would be no advantage in image quality at all!
The phone with a camera to beat this season is unquestionably the U11 (check the photo comparison), and thus any phone camera with an IMX362 sensor need only be taken seriously. Well, at least until the next series of Google Pixel phones arrives. We are in the age of outsourced camera modules (to the likes of Sony), which at least gives us some means of comparison between camera solutions, albeit at the expense of truly ground-breaking sensor innovation similar to that delivered in the 808 PureView or Lumia 1020. However, I - and I'm sure many other similar Nokia fans - would like to see this compromise flatly refuted at some point. Until then, the painful wait continues for a phone that delivers decent, above-social-media-average image quality. Personally, my frustration with the 808 PureView's software over 5 years has led me to a sensible Android-based solution with a decent camera module like the IMX362. There are thankfully some models on the horizon.
The Nokia 8 is a undoubtedly good phone - containing a good screen, fantastic loudspeakers, solid build quality and a flagship processor. Apart from that, it barely approaches the summit of image quality that prior Nokia cameras have scaled.
"High-end ZEISS lenses in front of all three sensors"
Really? No, that's just marketing nonsense that you even extend. Moreover even if the lenses were extremely sharp, you wouldn't really notice an advantage over other smartphones as the sensor has only 13 megapixels. Nearly every smartphone lens has sharp corners, too. I would also guess that the lenses are even not made by Zeiss , just licensed by Zeiss.
When looking at the photo chart comparison screen, things get a lot clearer.
I compared vs (G6 but changed quite quick to) iPhone 7+ and Galaxy S8 which are the better than G6 since G6 has a ridiculous amount of sharpening, counturing issues and colours that are noway near standards.
Nokia 8 +
- Basically ZERO counturing = allmost no sharpening added which is great for enthusiassts
- Higher IRL line resolution = more details
- Spot on colours in good light (not the "punchy colours" that non enthusiasts care for)
- No stair casing, jaggines on angled lines (no details destroyed)
- better resolution on angled lines
Nokia 8 -
- Problem to reproduce magenta in low light
- Darker images in low light
- soft corners (though this is pretty common on smart phones - but is the G6 only strong point)
It all makes senso now why so many reviewers that are not very professional complain about the colours. Most other phones have something similar to "high contrast mode " on TV's. What it actually does is totally destroy the image and its changed from "true to life" to "hit the consumer in the face and drag him in with as much "fake detail" as possible (counturing due to exagerated sharpness) and "smashing colours" (increase colours to the point it looks good at first view - but compare it to a DLSR or the real motive and it will be onvious which camera reproduces the reallity best)
To make a comparison with TV sets, You can see the same thing in the cameras but since Nokia dont make TVs I would list it like this for comparison:
Nokia = Panasonic plasma
Samsung = Samsung LCD (the later good versions)
iPhone = Similar to Samsung
LG = LG LCD with all "blow it in your face features" at level 8/10
1. I prefer the bright images of the Nokia, but the dark images of the Samsung.
2. iPhone 7+ is runner up but lags behind on fine detail and colours being off (especially reds)
3. LG far behind - only strong suit being corner sharpness (likely with help from over sharpening entire image)
I hope the camera software is not in its final form. It's mediocre for a flagship.
Not bad for their first flagship grade smartphone in a while. And they finally ditched that garbage WP OS.
HMD X Nokia is just starting make a flagship phone so it may has much bad side. Its make a sense? Hmm
Quick grab any phone that come with SD 836, it will have superb battery life.... Just keep going...
John0087, 26 Aug 2017hi guys, what's the best smartphones for audiophiles? even if they were last year's flagship .... moreLG G6 has a "Quad Dac" feature. You can learn more at LG V20 and LG G6 audio review on YouTube. I dont know how good is but many peoples say V20 and G6 has great audio.
Way too small for even consider as my next phone, no thanks. Otherwise it seems to be okay and finally runs Android instead of that mobile Windows.
This or the Essential Phone for me. For camera and lower price, Nokia 8. For futuristic design with strong build materials, Essential. People need to check Dave Lee's review on the Essential Phone on YouTube. Looks like a winner. I would take either Nokia (HMD) or Andy Ruben's phone over the overpriced Note8 and iPhone 8.
This is what I call, a pure flagship phone. I was extremely impressed about the Nokia 8 audio, performance, display and durability!!!!!!!!!!!
hi guys, what's the best smartphones for audiophiles? even if they were last year's flagship .I really need an answer because I'll upgrade soon. I have the lg g2 bought it 2 years ago and the sound quality through headphone jack has degraded
In gsmarena's studio setup the Nokia 6 performs much better in low light than the Nokia 8
Anonymous, 25 Aug 2017Where is the MOTO Z2? why you guys keep on excluding that monster phone? are you afraid how mo... moreNope, moto z2 it's actually irrelevant, everybody knows it. Your are probably the only one that doesn't;). But yeah, i would prefer for Nokia to be put against sony motorola and alcatel, instead of xiaomi oneplus crapple or samesung. But well, those oldies but goldies are all left behind...
"It's a magic number for Nokia and the Android edition lives up to the standards of the 808 PureView[...]. In short, HMD got everything right in the camera department."
Is this a joke? No full manual mode, no raw (the review does not answer the question whether 3rd party apps support raw), sensor is 4.6times smaller than the Nokia 808, image processing is so bad (and also extremely slow) that there is no difference between dual camera or single camera and the autofocus seems to be awful.