Re: It's not all about the pixels...
The magic in 808/1020 was really sensor size, not massive pixel count - the information that both had bigger then usual mobile-phone sensors was somehow lost in the noise. Actually, 1020 had far smaller sensor than 808 to fit optics into the body and its quality suffered for it, but it still managed to beat everything else into submission, when you had the patience and photographed static scene (it was woefully slow due to wholly inadequate CPU).
That's also why they had to do such an enormous protruding optics - bigger sensor, bigger optics. The pixel count only means that reading and processing requires more energy (power and time).
Biting the hand that feeds IT
