YiannisPP: Can someone please explain to me the "I own it" and "I had it" votes that come up every time a not yet released camera is presented here? I've always been curious. At first I thought it's just people who mistakenly press the wrong button but surely the percentage is rather high to be it? Then it could be people who just mess around but again the percentage seems too high. What is it?
I was hoping for a DPR take on this. Yes it can be some misguided people but even they would get bored of doing the same thing over and over again, especially since no-one seems to care. Weird...
Lol maybe. Of course there are other reviewers out there who get access to those and maybe they too enter their votes in DPR:) Either way none of those people "own" the camera.
Let DPR reply to that, but I doubt it. It cannot be that 17 of DPR's stuff (do they have as much in total?!) had tested this:)
Can someone please explain to me the "I own it" and "I had it" votes that come up every time a not yet released camera is presented here? I've always been curious. At first I thought it's just people who mistakenly press the wrong button but surely the percentage is rather high to be it? Then it could be people who just mess around but again the percentage seems too high. What is it?
Priaptor: I am pretty amazed at the Apple fans (and I happen to be one, but am not married to Apple) berate Windows and their new products. Granted, Microsoft has had a questionable past, however, those of you old enough to remember, even with Jobs, Apple also had a questionable past.
Microsoft IS getting their act together. Their newest products are sold out. Quite frankly, if it were not for the entrenched ecosystem of their apps on iOS, they would be facing more competition from Microsoft than they currently are. Microsoft is waking up, have indeed released some fantastic products over the last month and the cross platform capabilities of Windows 10 IS BETTER than iOS and El Capitan. Windows 10 still has some work to do before I can truly embrace it in a "tablet" format BUT it is very close.
While I am not calling for the demise of Apple or its entrenched user base, Microsoft is making great headway
Headphones not working (never heard this before), calls dropping, OK, I give up, the 920 must be really bad and the iPhone really great...Your last paragraph says it all really, all those other companies coming up with "the Android", but it's beyond Microsoft's capability really...I get it now:)By the way, is this your wife or kid thumbing up everything you write a min later?!
And my 820 never drops calls on its own, I thought the 920 was more or less the same device with higher ppi screen and more memory... Do you mean that your 920 drops calls from time to time that you are sure the iPhone wouldn't? Because that would go against many reviews that put Nokia pure "telephoning" capabilities above Apple's....some iPhone models have been known to have reception issues over the years, not the case with Nokias at all.
You have been very unlucky if your glass broke. As I said mine has fallen countless times and nothing. As you yourself noted, comparing the iPhone 6+ with the 3 year old 920 is not right. I am not sure how your navigation was flawed, maybe not used properly somewhow? I stand by the general picture I painted about the merits of each brand's navigation quality over the last years. I'm driving all the time and sometimes I have to tell people to meet me somewhere where none of us have been before. I always get there, they frequently get lost. I am specifically talking about offline navigation. Finally, I didn't say apps are useless, I am a developer myself (though not for smartphones). Their usefulness in improving one's life though is undoubtedly way inflated by the media and fanboys alike. Please give me a couple of apps that are missing from Windows and thus make it a no-no for you. I am curious.
Finally, my phone's yellow polycarbonate body is cracked on all four corners from the 20 times it has fallen off my hands or jacket pockets. That's because it was cheap and I don't treat it like a precious jewel, I just throw it around. The (bright and deep-blacks, intense colours) screen though still looks like new and looks better than all the other screens I see in devices of similar price range even today. But that's no problem, I can easily replace it with my more serious looking black version cover. Let me know what happens when you drop your iPhone and when you are able to replace the back cover or its battery. And when you can easily pass your photos to someone else's device that doesn't have itunes. And...OK, rant over.
And talking about making it back home alive, my 3-year old Nokia Windows phone has always been showing my the right way through its excellent offline navigation app, even 3 years ago when there was nothing comparable in other devices. But what would you know about it? You never tried it I'm sure. Even now that the rest have somewhat caught up, my GPS is always spot on while none of my friends who have iPhones and Galaxys really use them for that purpose. Now that's something useful, showing you the way when you're lost. Not being able to switch off the lights with my phone, not having chrome or FF, or an app to pay my card? Big deal, there are alternatives to all that, I go to Internet Explorer or Edge and just do everything from there.
It is very simple indeed. You spoke like an Apple marketing executive. If you are not one, then their marketing has really been successful. My Nokia 820 is pretty darn usable, thank you. And definitely more fun than those boring Samsungs for example. I ain't saying that Apple didn't revolutionize this sector of course, but as I said, those famed apps which are now used as a weapon against MS, are not nearly as essential as you make them out to be. Sometimes I really do wonder how do I make it back home alive. How do I survive and how haven't I got depressed already, lacking those necessary and super fun apps and all...
I don't see why buying Nokia wouldn't help. Nokia did have experience in making the best hardware out there, overall and most notably the cameras. The camera quality is central to smartphone users I believe, after all all you see in the streets is people taking photos with them. Now of course the people are also being hypnotized into thinking that they cannot survive without an app that switches off their heating from their phone, but that's hardly MS's fault.
tompabes2: The images are impressive, but they have been downsized to 8mp.
Only one of them (the leaves) is downsized to 8MP, the rest are all 15MP or 19MP and looking impressive indeed.
BozillaNZ: I've got a developed raw image of the studio shot from Image Resources. This file is converted to Canon CR2 format using my own developed tool and then converted to JPG using, hold on to your seat, the Canon RAW Image Task. The color rendition is a lot more Canon-like and the sharpness is very good.
LX-100 to Canon CR2, developed in RAW Image Task:http://bozillanz.minus.com/i/y3rkp5ZGXXBY
Labels are the same and every piece of fabric (read all but one-blue- napkin) has finer pattern detail in the RX100III shot. It's just that the LX100 shot seems a bit more (local?) contrasty, but partly that might be because the RX100 shot is slightly lighter. That doesn't bug me at all and I don't disagree with you if you prove to me that ISO200 is indeed ISO200 exactly in both cameras:) But that's fine my friend, I'm not trying to declare a winner overall, I trust my eyes and you can trust your, no problem.
Well if you look at the yellow napkins below, you can see the fabric pattern in the RX100III shot and not in the LX100 shot. Equally you can see more lines in the Proportional scale bit with the RX100III (you can't distinguish lines after 80 with the LX100, with the RX100 you can). The nominal exposure parameters might be the same but you know that those things are not exactly normalised across different cameras, for example the real ISO might be 220 with one and 180 with another. I am talking real exposure here and I see the LX100 grey (and the rest of the colours) as slightly darker.
You're a star:) As I expected, the RX100III has indeed a slight resolution advantage, though they are close. The RX100 shot does seem a bit "washed out" in comparison, exposure is still not identical but close enough. Thanks for that. As you correctly stated, it's only a particular studio comparison but if that proves to be representative of real world performance, then I see no reason to prefer the LX100 over the RX100III. Have you by any chance tried to convert and compare the equivalent high ISO shots, say ISO3200? Does the LX100 have a clear advantage there maybe?
Joel, seems to me like a classic case of seeing what one wants to see (not implying you're a Pana fan boy, maybe just a fan of logic, i.e. cameras should perform according to their essential specs-sensor size combined with lens quality).
But, you compared a dedicated RAW conversion of someone who obviously did his best to showcase his project (interesting exercise by the way) to the RX100III OOC jpeg? Sounds fair, not! But even so, you just saw what you wanted to see. I can easily read the small letter in the RX100III ISO200 OOC jpeg (circular scale) but I cannot in the LX100 RAW conversion. That's partly because it's a tad oversharpened (which makes it look sharper as you noted), I can read the text a bit better in the LX100 jpeg actually. But in the latter the napkins texture is smudged away. It's give and take but I'm pretty sure that if you compared a good RAW conversion of the RX100III file with a good RAW conversion of the LX100, you'd find that the RX100III wins on resolution.
YiannisPP: I am not impressed. I don't care if RAWs are better (surely they can't be much better, we are at 2014), those should be looking a lot crispier.
Yes, all RAW conversions in my gallery are from the RX100, though I've at times downloaded RAWs from other cameras from reviews and played with those too.
I've used LR4.3 for those but now have 5.2 as well. As I said, Sony is not particularly known for its jpeg engine in its Cybershot line, it's supposed to have heavy-handed NR. That said in my experience at fairly low ISOs the jpegs can't be improved much detail/noise wise when you work the RAW file. It's not only my opinion, check DPR's review of the RX100 which mentions the same thing. I can't believe Panasonic's jpeg engine is a lot worse than Sony's.
There are full resolution images and 100% crops...
I just checked my gallery and it actually has more than one RAW-jpegs examples, feel free to check if you wish.Jeez man, I was right bout the futile of our discussion:) Did I ever say I have only used IDC? You're amazing. I've used LR, IDC and tested DxO. Did I ever say I was trying to improve a jpeg starting with the jpeg?! You really do think I'm that ignorant don't you?! Of course I always start with the RAW file, since I have to spell this out for you...
And yes of course downsizing does make images look better per pixel on a monitor (sharper and with finer grain), I thought it was obvious this was what I meant, people here look at the LX100 jpegs at pixel level, they don't go and print them...
Howard, I ignored that point and others because frankly I don't think it will lead anywhere in our discussion. You seem convinced that I am not familiar with RAW when in fact I know I am. But since you insist, your Canon G2 yes had good jpegs as did my Canon G3. There was a good reason with the G series back then was considered the top in digicams. Canon had photographic expertise already when digicams started to become more popular, while Panasonic and Sony were more general electronics companies. So I think that's why the Canon Gs had good jpegs, along with the fact it only outputs 4MP files. When you downsize these 13MP jpegs to 4MP, I'm sure they'll look stellar.
Anyway, my main experience with RAW is with my RX100 and I can say with certainty that you can't get a huge advantage noise/detail wise at low ISOs, i.e. you can't have a bad looking jpeg and make it look good from RAW. Yes you can improve on it (I think my galery has an example, don't remember), but not dramatically.