Marty4650: Different strokes for different folks.
For me, this gadget makes absolutely no sense. I can buy a Panasonic GX7 for less than the cost of this iPhone plug in.
Granted, it should provide much better image quality than any cell phone camera can. Bus so can most real cameras that cost less. I think the smartphone cult is overreaching now, and creating products their customers really don't want.
The cell phone photographer doesn't need better image quality. They have told us for years that their iPhones are "good enough for their needs." This product makes about as much sense as a Nikon D810 that can send text messages and that you can play Angry Birds on.
But like I said... someone will want one of these things. Even if I'm not that someone.
"By fmian: And when Apple changes their iPhone connector again, this device will become [obsolete]No, it will not become obsolete because it already is.And Apple has used only 2 different connectors for iPhone/iPod/iPad since the first iPhone in 2007, which is not so bad IMO. I have drawers full of USB cables with many different connectors.
Questions: "Was this image taken with a DSLR or a mirrorless camera? If you can't tell from looking at the final image, does it matter?"Answer: "Of course I know it doesn't matter, but I'm going to write 2 pages of blahblah about this anyway because geeks love blahblah and it will generate traffic on DPR".Suggestions for new "opinion" pages for the summer:- Canon or Nikon?- Apple or Samsung?- Cookie dough or chocolate chips ?
"For me, this gadget makes absolutely no sense."People can pay thousands of $ for a very inconvenient "watch". Many can afford overpriced smartphones, and all sorts of gadgets. Very expensive cars, tons of expensive BS.So the DxO One is just another gadget, but somehow it makes sense. That's the world that we live in.
Mssimo: Amazing image quality. Check out large samples http://thedigitalstory.com/2015/06/the-dxo-one-camera.html
I see nothing really amazing in these images. The iPhone can capture decent images just by itself:https://www.apple.com/iphone/world-gallery/
Canon PowerShot G3X: $1000Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 IV: $950Fujifilm X-T10 + 16-50 Lens: $800
... DxO One : $600 😂
Sigh. Ite, missa est.
nicoboston: If you want to have fun with a DSLR and good lenses, and don't want a big camera, get a 100D (SL1). The 100D should be the only "Rebel". The other ones (6 Rebels !!!) are mostly useless. Those who want a simple entry level DSLR will get the 100D, and if they need more "serious" gear they have the XXDs. Currently Canon has 17 EOS DSLRs available and it does not make sense ! In the current context it is totally counterproductive.They should get rid of at least 50% of current DSLR bodies, unless they want to make this wonderful EOS system totally incomprehensible :-(
EOS DSLRs are not useless IMO. Just... I don't think we need 17 of them. They don't need to test the market anymore. The 2015 market is pretty clear, and the future is predictable. As far as I'm concerned, I "downgraded" from several XXDs to a 100D. It is small, lightweight, and fun. I don't see the point of continuing making bigger and more expensive "Rebels". I guess Canon knows.
If you want to have fun with a DSLR and good lenses, and don't want a big camera, get a 100D (SL1). The 100D should be the only "Rebel". The other ones (6 Rebels !!!) are mostly useless. Those who want a simple entry level DSLR will get the 100D, and if they need more "serious" gear they have the XXDs. Currently Canon has 17 EOS DSLRs available and it does not make sense ! In the current context it is totally counterproductive.They should get rid of at least 50% of current DSLR bodies, unless they want to make this wonderful EOS system totally incomprehensible :-(
nicoboston: Great technology, but isn't the electronic correction of aberrations more rational? And, more importantly, more flexible?I like the approach of DxO OP and others. It's more realistic IMO.
I agree PazinBoise, but I can't figure out how the curved sensor technology will be optimized for every lens, every focal length, every aperture. Post-processing is extremely flexible. I don't say that this technology is bad.Concerning the comparison with the eye, I think it's totally abusive. First, a biological system cannot make a flat surface. We cannot compare an industrial process with biology. Second, images generated by the retina are EXTREMELY post-processed. The brain performs more post processing than any computer. If we could see "raw" images from our retina, they would look extremely ugly.Our sensor, the retina, has many "defects", including a big cluster of dead pixels (the blind spot)... What we "see" is what is generated by our eyes + brain.So if we want to compare honestly with biological systems, a massive post-processing is actually more natural.
Great technology, but isn't the electronic correction of aberrations more rational? And, more importantly, more flexible?I like the approach of DxO OP and others. It's more realistic IMO.
My old Powershot D10 was killed by sand in a door :-(But, seriously, take a look at the 2009 group test:http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Q209waterproofgroupIMO, IQ was better 5 years ago. Or not worse.I'm think of all the marketing gadgets (WiFi, GPS). I ordered a AW120 to replace my D10... and returned it after one week. IQ is bad beyond imagination, even in bright sunlight. The D30 does not look much better. The D10 was less compact but the lens was decent and I got very nice images from this camera.Five years later, all we get is bad IQ, awful periscopic lenses, useless gadgets and slippery cameras.Sigh.
photoguy622: Those pictures are atrocious. I thought the Olympus was bad at detail retention, the Nikon is even worse.
I got this camera and returned it after one week.Pictures are actually atrocious.It was a replacement for my Powershot D10, which died after 5 years. The AW120 generates large files with no detail, I miss the D10. I don't care about brands. The new Canon has also this crappy periscopic objective, and it's even slower.I know that we should not expect much from these tiny waterproof cameras, but can't we expect a 2014 camera to be, at least, as good as a 2011 camera ? WiFi and GPS are gadgets, but IQ just sucks, even under bright sunlight !!!
veroman: Don't be too hard on Canon. They're doing the best they can.
So do you.
tkbslc: People freaking out because Canon knows this isn't a photography tradeshow.
Fair comment.Only... Why writing a "stand report" for such an insignificant event?To celebrate emptiness?I like Canon a lot, an I'm perfectly OK if they have nothing new to show in this geek fair. But the stand report (and the stand) was useless.
The purpose was also to send a big "ENOUGH" following recurrent racism issues in France lately (as the country is more or less falling appart, it's very tempting to blame others).Good photographers and photojournalists are not in danger. Talented people will always exist. They have to adapt. It won't be easy, but they have to! Everybody loves nice images. Now everyone can capture decent images with good cameras and phones... If everyone had access to good violins and pianos, it would be more difficult to become a recognized musician. It's competition... Don't give up, photographers ! Newspapers will disappear, you won't ;-)
Poor review IMO.Almost everything has been described elsewhere for weeks or months.More importantly, there's not a single word about DYNAMIC RANGE, which was one of the most interesting aspect of X10, thanks to EXR.
There is major change that nobody seems to notice:The unlisted gallery URL does not exist anymore.Bottom line: you can send links for individual albums, but not an unlisted gallery. It was my favorite feature of Picasaweb ! Very unique.I totally hate Google +.Picasaweb was great, clean, simple and fast !G+ is BS, slow, uselessly complicated, and lacks that sharing option that was so great.Now my pictures are in iPhoto with PhotoStream galleries. It's not great, but I'm very disappointed with Google.
Compare carefully 2 images using the "Studio scene comparison (RAW)" page.Select RX1 vs. Canon Powershot G10, RAW, ISO 100.We are talking about a $2,800 2013 camera vs. a discontinued 2008 Powershot.Right, the RX1 is much better.But is it really worth the price tag?
PS: repeat with the G15Sigh... Sony knows marketing.
dgeugene1: The video was mostly out of focus. I don't think they really want anyone to know what they are doing.
"The video was mostly out of focus."Because they use Nikon lenses :-)
seilerbird666: It is strange to read all these moronic comments from people who are obviously do not know one thing about this mission. There are 17, count them, 17 cameras on board. So far only a few of the cameras are working. In a week or so when Curiosity has all her systems checked out and all her cameras working you are going to see some hi res images that will make you drool.
Is it really strange to read moronic comments on DPR?Morons have always existed. Now they have the opportunity to show their moronity to the world. Luckily, talented engineers and genius have also always existed. Images from NASA and others make me drool on a daily basis. Enjoy and ignore the morons...
nicoboston: I see orbs.The image is soft.White balance is not accurate.
I just want to let you know that, in my culture, we don't need to write "just kidding" at the end of a sentence to notify the readers that we are kidding...I am amazed by the images send by Curiosity, as I was amazed by Spirit, Opportunity and the others...It's pure magic to me, and NASA has always amazed me. Sometime I regret that I was not born earlier, just to see these guys running on the moon.Obviously some of you do not understand sarcasm. A while ago a guy in France said "You can laugh at everything, but not with everyone". This is truer than ever.
NASA, please continue to amaze me!
And Curiosity deserves a DPR Silver Award :-)))