vadims: I don't think the world's fastest AF can be used to its full potential without an OVF or EVF.
Yes we are belaboring the point. Thanks for teaching me that expression, I admit I hadn't come across it before.
Whatever impression I have about Americans (generally good), you are definitely not improving it, let's leave it here.
Sure, but it was you who first made an unqualified assertion that it comes with an EVF (obviously thinking about only the USA), by not specifying which country you were referring to. Plus he was more in the right since he's speaking for the majority of the world, while you were only thinking of one single country.
You're welcome. But it's not my fault you corrected haiiyaa instead of your post. Nice try.
"This comes with an EVF in the USA".There, we fixed your post, which was the one that needed fixing. In most of the world it comes without an EVF so you are the exception. Plus the fact that you thought you had to correct haiiyaa for not living in the USA, implies you think the USA is the center of the world. Which is not.
Stephen McDonald: There's no mention of a loss of resolution in the FZ1000 lens, beyond 300mm. This is mentioned in another review. In the samples, there's only a couple of full-zoom photos and they don't look very sharp. This issue needs to be examined closely and addressed in the next edition of a DPR review on this camera.
In this one sample we have here of the tower, I see no loss of resolution whatsoever. In fact I am impressed with it. On the other hand, looking at the RX10 at full wide, I see a distinctly soft right side. So in either case it might just be sample variance, though that is not a good thing either of course.
Only part of the caterpillar is in focus here, obviously not intended. Use f2.8 or f3.2 instead and you'd get the whole thing in sharp focus, the lens resolves more probably stopped down a bit anyway and the background would still be nicely blurred.
rsjoberg: I'll stick with my LX7 and EVF. The larger sensor would be nice, but the 70mm tele not so much. Anyway the LX 7 is nearly perfect; my small camera lust was sated.
In case you do not realise this, the RX100 M3 gives you 100mm reach if you crop to the inner 10MP of its 20MP output. That's a bit longer than the LX7's 90mm tele, while you do get the larger sensor benefits even in this case. And of course you can keep the full 20MP if you want 70mm and below. If you did realise this then ignore my post.
xoio: $899 = approx £530 at current exchange rate, even with a bank's creaming X percent onto that, it would still be sub £600. So where do they get the wallet raping £749 from?
Firstly I compare recommended retail because that's what we are talking about here. The nerve the companies have to ask for more here in the UK than the US. The fact that the market later settles to a lower price which is closer to the US price (after accounting for the exchange rate and VAT) just proves I'm right, i.e. they were asking for too much to start with.
Secondly, as I clearly stated, import duty is zero and there are no other mysterious differences which can account for that extra 20-40% suggested mark up we nornally get (still left after VAT has been accounted for). Amazon warehouses do not cost that much more in Europe than in the US to justify such huge mark ups. I can also claim that transport costs are lower for Europe as China is closer to Europe than the US. But all those things do not account for the huge mark up.
Thirdly, I don't buy it, but I want other people to realise that this is what is happening and don't buy it either, not until the price has dropped.
@ Greynerd. He didn't put you right, he just misled you! Import duty for digicams is ZERO.
@ spzphoto Do not mislead people please. There is no "import duty" for digital cameras, it's 0%.As for the "free health care" argument, I thought that was accounted for by the much higher VAT in the UK vs the US? Supposedly that's where the extra tax goes right? Why count the same thing twice as an excuse for the ridiculous 40% mark up? Please, this is something that companies have been doing for years in Europe, they always ask a lot more than they do from Americans (via the distorted MSRPs set by the companies). Presumably they think we Europeans are either filthy rich or stupid.
billbourd: I'm surprised Leica chose not to machine the camera out of titanium instead of the cheaper, softer aluminum. If it were titanium I might have had to invest in one. :)
I didn't say it wasn't:) Just trying to warn people thinking titanium is super hard in general.
Titanium is known to be light and strong, but not particularly hard. My titanium watch got full of scratches quite fast. Steel is harder in general. Hardness refers to how well a material resists scratches. Strength refers to how well a material resists failure (i.e. breaking)
nyer82: I'm confused about this: "There is no real innovation to be found in the camera department." But then the same paragraph mentions a few of those innovations.
Also unmentioned is the addition of phase detection AF. Isn't that usually only found in DSLRs? This seems like it would be a pretty big improvement to me, how it works in practice of course remains to be seen. And in another article there are also claims the sensor size is larger (by how much no clue).
Anyway,DP- you guys didn't do your best with this write up.
I agree. This is supposed to be a site looking at smartphones from the camera perspective. As such there should be a mention of the camera sensor size. That's the first thing I was looking for. If that information is not available then at least say what you think it is. If nothing is known, then in any case there is not great point in presenting this here now. Let other more specialized sites talk about its 256-core processor and 2TB of RAM and amazing Android features. Here people are interested mainly in photo/video IQ and since the glass is really small (we can see that!), the most important factor will be the sensor size. Will it be the usual 1/3 or less or something closer to the Nokia ones.
Alphoid: I wish the Nokia phones would dual-boot Android and Windows Phone. I'd totally buy one of these models if I wasn't taking a risk on Windows but had a choice.
Alternatively, I wish some Android manufacturer would release a reasonable competitor.
It's funny. It seems like Nokia is hampered by Windows (since otherwise, almost all photographers would buy Nokia), and Windows is hampered by Nokia (who doesn't make the best hardware otherwise). If Microsoft had a strategy of choice on all handsets, it would work better for all involved.
Heck, if I got an Android+Windows phone, I'd at least try Windows. If Windows was better (and I've never used it, so aside from knowing how badly Windows sucks elsewhere, I have no idea), I'd switch to Windows.
It's sooooooo tiring listening the same thing over and over again "it's no Android, so we don't want it". Like listening to 10 yr old kids. At some point you might realise that the WP8 OS is just as good as any out there and actually feels more modern than the rest.
"a7's photos suffer from many of the same issues as Sony's compact cameras. These issues include posterization and clumsy sharpening and noise reduction algorithms"
Hum, when reading this one would be excused to think that DPR is indeed being overcritical of Sony. Are we talking about Sony's consumer compacts? Or the RX100/RX10? Because the latter jpegs do not "suffer" at all.
YiannisPP: Some of the 5MP samples look pretty bad, like the one of the church and the one of the car. I've seen stellar samples from the 1520 like this for example:http://www.flickr.com/photos/36088371@N00/11106588633/sizes/o/in/pool-2353118@N20/
Hi Howard. That was ISO 100 (I would've been really surprised if it were anything else!) and the guy says it was his first photo with the phone, so I doubt he shot his first photo with in DNG and converted it:) If you download the photo you can see the EXIF, says windows phone, no conversion software. Pretty impressive I thought... I somehow don't think a small sensor dedicated compact camera can match this particular shot in detail. Talking about the 12MP ones out there with 1/2.3 or 1/1.7 sensors.
Some of the 5MP samples look pretty bad, like the one of the church and the one of the car. I've seen stellar samples from the 1520 like this for example:http://www.flickr.com/photos/36088371@N00/11106588633/sizes/o/in/pool-2353118@N20/
Yet another case of someone servling us the obvious as "science".
unhavatar: Psychological studies are just things that keep paying the psychologist's bills. Personally, I consider their views to be a load of crap in general, probably all friends of Tony Blair. Obviously, a photograph will bring back more memory of a situation than none at all, especially when you can't really remember what someone looked like.
To be honest, I cannot remember agreeing with any psychologist.
Who told you they're getting paid for these studies? They're probably just happy they had something punlished on "Phychological Science" for free.
Joseph Mama: Comparing to a low level ELPH 115 or something would be more appropriate. Why use an S120? Thats a pretty good camera. Heck, maybe just use an RX100 and then crap all over the poor cameraphone...
I do not believe you, sorry but the 808 beats the S120 in terms of noise/detail (when you downscale the original 40MP file down to 12MP yourself and process accordingly. I've done this exercise, you probably haven't, you're just assuming. If you're referring to other aspects of performance like handling, WB or whatever then fine.