wlad: ..and comparing 100% crops from sensors with different resolutions makes sense because .... ?
Correct. It makes absolutely no sense. It's like comparing a 3" square cut out from a 6x9 photo to a 3" square cut out from a billboard.
A 100% crop would make sense only if you downsampled all pictures to 13MP - ie the resolution of the sensor with the lowest resolution in test.
Not sure I agree with that. Comparing at 100% crop does show the quality of the details captured at the pixel level. I think a comparison at the same resolution is also good, but that would be even less useful than a 100% crop, because nobody shoots with the Nokia 1020 and gets a 13 MP photo every time!! Based on what you've said, you'd be better off letting every camera produce images at their native resolution, while the Nokia ouputs to 5 MP, and then comparing images that way, whether at 100% crop or not.
Also, the 100% crops on page 3 are weird? In some of the eye photos, the 100% crop of the Sony and Samsung photos result in the eyes being a very similar size, but in the first one, they Sony is more similar to the 1020.
Did the camera-to-subject distance vary between shots? It would have been nice for this to not change so that we can see how much additional detail the 1020's 38 MP images capture.
Stefan M: Sorry. Can't hear it anymore. There is no such thing as equivalent to APS/FF/m43...whatever. Hence this lens is exclusively for APS it's even more absurd talking about any FF equivalency. A 18-35mm F1.8 lens will always be a 18-35mm F1.8 lens.
I guess a lot of people will enjoy this lens.
"The lens has a 50 mm focal length, or approximately a 35 mm equivalent focal length on an APS-C DSLR."
JDThomas: One thing I have to disagree with is two of the "cons"
"restricted zoom range". How can the zoom range be considered restrictive? Maybe if you compare it to a STANDARD zoom. But this is NOT a standard zoom. It's in a class of it's own. It's a super-fast zoom. You don't buy this lens for range. You buy it for low-light capability. If you look at it from that point of view it's not restricted. If you are going to lump it in the standard zoom category then ALL f/2.8 zooms must now have in the Cons column "restricted aperture setting"
"physically large for a standard zoom". Again, this lens is NOT a standard zoom. If you want speed you need big glass. To be perfectly honest. This lens a actually SMALL considering what it does.
"Limited zoom range"being a con is a laugh. That's a "pro" of this lens. That's why people would buy this lens!!
It's not an 18-250 mm lens, but that was never the point. Do reviews of prime lenses all say "limited zoom range" as a con?
I agree with Stefan M.
In fact, there are so many digital shooters using cameras with an APS-C camera that it would be better to move forward by just stating focal lengths for APS-C sensored cameras. People are used to APS-C sensors, and the view that an 18 mm lens will give them on such a DSLR. There's no need for so many people to convert everything to full-frame equivalency when the majority of DSLR and mirrorless camera shooter aren't shooting FF.
I know some people will disagree, since the history of 35 mm film goes back decades, and SLRs have existed well before the advent of digital. However, I read that there are currently a far greater number of active DSLR users today than there were SLR in the decade before digital.
We don't state equivalent focal lengths and apertures in terms of medium format, and that used to be "full frame". I don't know why we treat 35 mm as some sort of standard, especially when those people who use the smaller sensor far outweigh FF users.
Dominick101: The writer kept praising its large sensor and kept re-emphasizing how downsampling helped in improving quality but made no mention of the comparative results against its predecessor which did better in all these aspects. Funny thing is that the 808 is being shown on the first page and the ending word kinda' implies that the 1020 is a better camera than the 808 without even a single comparative shot -- they are clearly trying to downplay the 808 without even a single proof that the 1020 can do better. Without a doubt, this article is biased and DP has lost its credibility as of late.
I wouldn't see the point of comparing to the 808 anyway. As a consumer, it's not like I can choose between the 808 and the Lumia 1020. A comparison to the 808 would be "cute", but not relevant to the significant majority of people who want to make a purchase today.
iae aa eia: OK, it's a great phone, but I can't believe this is the successor of the 808 PureView.
No, I agree that this is the successor to the 808 PureView.
How could the 920/925 possibly be the "successors" to the iPhone 5 and S4? Different companies. Besides, the 920 came out at around the same time as the iPhone 5, while the 925 came out at around the same time as the S4 (and no, a few months here and there doesn't matter).
Yavor: I think is pointless to show 5MP samples for 41MP camera. Or the logic is "you have 41MP, so you can take good 5MP photos".
No, the 41 MP sensor in this phone isn't so that you can take 41 MP photos. The entire point was that you can get better 5 MP photos from this camera than the 8 MP camera from an iPhone, a 13 MP photo from an S4, etc.
The ability to keep the 41 MP image from the camera is nice, but not really the point. It's not like the Nikon D800, where your high MP camera is meant for photographers who need 38 (?) MP.
Frank_BR: Certainly it was not for lack of film that the downfall of Kodak was not well documented.
It's a Kodak Moment.
KariIceland: Only amateurs do the dutch angle, not professionals.
Rigid people = rigid photographers.
These types of people are rarely creative.
Octane: I would visit 'connect' more often if there was actual journalism, not this. Once again, a quickly thrown together page using a subject that hopefully getting a discussion/controversy going, trying to generate some traffic here.
Which sites? Also, which one of them do you not leave comments on?
Those ones are worth checking out.
jcmarfilph: Yawn... yet another iPhone-on-the-header article...
He does have a hobby: being that annoying guy.
Zvonimir Tosic: I don't understand Olympus. Why they issue an E-Px camera, then also an E-PLx camera which is basically bastardised and cheap E-Px? Why they follow the logic, or the lack of it, of the DSLR manufacturers? For example, why they don't keep the value and the appeal of the E-Px cameras by issuing a separate line of fixed, quality retractable lens cameras with the same sensor and in the similar design (but a camera category that is more like the Coolpix A and Ricoh GR, or even Fuji X100s)? The small form factor of the mirrorless offer would really show its truer potential, and would not devaluate the appeal of the Pen camera. (And then on top those two lines, have an OM-D like offer too). In retrospect, by now they could practically own the market which Fujifilm, Sigma, Nikon ad Ricoh try to create and establish themselves with their fixed-lens, large sensor enthusiast cameras.I appreciate your answers.
Why do people who have no idea how to successfully operate a corporation believe that they can run a corporation so easily?
Managarm: Leonard NIMOY!
Seeing is believing...
My only consolation is that I have more music talent than Bryan Adams.
Or Snapseed + GooglePlus = Instagram + Facebook.
....which is not going to happen either.
Timmbits: I was a little upset when they discontinues igoogle.com ...it brought everything together into the best homepage we had ever seen.
Google used to be a one stop shop for a diversity of tidbits - tools here and there - that made it compelling to use google.
But as google sheds parts and components because of money problems and internal cost-cutting, it is becoming less and less attractive.
The whole was worth far more than the sum of it's parts... and now that they are breaking everything off, the ship is sinking for me.
Time to jump ship - Google has rendered itself useless to me.
First it was iGoogle, which was just fantastic, and exactly what I wanted.
Then they start chopping away at other things because not enough people use them? Do enough people use Google+? What about Chrome OS? Maybe they should cut them off too!
mjolnirq: [Off-topic] question about language :)
I am a non-native English speaker, and the sentence
a) "Currently these screens utilize the fairly rare metal, indium"
caught my attention. Is it grammatically correct or should it read either
b) "Currently these screens utilize the fairly rare metal indium"
c) "Currently these screens utilize a fairly rare metal, indium"
? Both version b) and version c) would have an exact correspondent for the use of the comma in Italian, my native language, but the use of the comma as in a) would be unusual/wrong in Italian, hence the question.
Actually, I thought the correct way to write this sentence is:
"Currently, these screens utilize the fairly rare metal, indium."
Notice the first comma after "Currently", and the last comma after "metal".
nawknai: This is like a rich guy suggesting that poor people just earn more money.
I grew up in the 'burbs.
I live in the city now, so I can try some street photography, but landscape photography is on hold until my next vacation.
Well, I didn't say that if I drive 100 km away, I couldn't find something worth photographing. I could easily take beautiful landscape photos in a myriad of places.
I used to live within 10 minute walk of several beaches (and just 1 minute from the ocean). Guess what? Lots of photos of the same subject, and without being prompted by any article.
Heck, maybe I should have written an article proclaiming how easy it is. ;)
I don't live within an hour walk from anything that wouldn't be considered street photography.
If you didn't literally mean "the same subject at different angles" (i.e. the same city, but not necessarily the same building or street), which I'm fairly sure you did imply, then I've already done so with street photography.
This is like a rich guy suggesting that poor people just earn more money.
David Hart: Looking through the posted pictures, the only photos that stood out for me were from Toby Smith and Nadya Wasylko.
Toby's photos makes me curious about each location. It makes sense that he's worked with National Geographic.
Nadya Wasylko's Photos are staged model photos, but they feel fresh. Perhaps it's just because I never read fashion magazines.
The other photos just didn't grab my attention.
It does seem like the photographers were picked for their commercial endeavours. There is nothing wrong with using this criteria and I'm happy for their success.
I do think that the use of the word "Emerging" is confusing, given each photographer's resume. I was expecting to read about photographers who were just starting out (i.e. first job, first gallery show, etc.).
Yeah, some of them are quite good, but for example, look at James Michelfelder & Therese Sommerseth's photos. I like them, but they're kind of what I expect to see from a sports magazine studio shot, so I'd only rate them as "photos I liked" rather than "impressive."