Roland Karlsson: Poor monsters and evil children, liking to kill and frighten the sorry creatures.
I give this a 2 on a scale of 1-10. That it gets a 2 and not a 1 is because it was a rather unexpected series of photos.
The kids are not realistic.
The nightmare monsters are not nightmarish, rather funny.
So you want scarier monsters, and children who look more 'realistic' fighting them in their bedrooms? Sheesh, just watch Harry Potter or LOTR or something.
Or perhaps look up 'catharsis' and begin to understand the fun and psychology behind this cute series.
beavertown: That kills the Canon with great humiliation.
Without Sony's sensor, Nikon will die straight away.
In the absence of peanut butter, Nikon can buy some jam. I really don't understand why you wish to engage in fantasy situations wherein companies cannot outsource to more efficient providers.
The essence of modern economic trade theory is specialisation, that is, we benefit when we don't all try to be farmers, printers, carpenters and textiles companies on our own. Sure, it would be more fun, and perhaps make you feel more independent, but it almost certainly would prevent your (or different society's) attainment of expertise and efficiencies.
Yes, Sony can charge more for its sensors if they're very good relative to the competition, but Nikon does still retain know-how in sensors not to mention ergonomics and extant customer and equipment bases. In the case of game theory type 'defection' on Sony's part e.g. hiking prices or withdrawing services, both Nikon and Sony would likely suffer long term, but neither their brands nor particular specialities are likely to suddenly 'die'.
munro harrap: There should come a point at which there is no vignetting. A lens designed to cover the sensor properly would have no vignetting even wide open. As they charge now so much money, perhaps we could get them to design for full-frame. I do not care if it is bigger and heavier, but I do care if it always vignettes. DX review shows it still vignettes a third of a stop at f11. I have zooms that are better than this.
If you use primes quality is now the sole criterion> I want primes that ALWAYS cover the sensor> I want zooms that do as well- remember the 70-200f2.8G VRI?
Fair enough. But software fixes most vignetting, and I personally care more about size, weight and other image quality characteristics like colour and contrast.
Roland Karlsson: What a disappointment. Make a very nice camera with a very good lens and put an aged sensor in it with yesterdays performance. I was planning to buy it. But ... now I buy something else. Thank you DPR for this review!
The problem is only - what?
I have looked at A6000, GM1, GX7, RX100 and P5.
I'd go Fuji x100 or x100s personally. I don't have one yet - still use an old heavy 5d and 35mm prime or my phone. But apart from battery life (which is always an issue with small cams , especially that can't use AA eneloops or equivalent as tech improves), I can't think of any downsides for casual photography.
Big pros include viewfinder and lens, as well as nice touchy-feely manual controls. Plus one should never underestimate the difference a beautiful retro camera will make to portrait subject's comfort and thus smiles. :)
dr8: I didn't get past the word "re-imagine". I also don't read articles or see movies that are labeled "must - ___ ".
Good for you. Now think something helpful.
michael19843: Why did they not make this camera with a zoom lens? Pure mental concept to have two adapters. Just stick a zoom lens on it Fuji.
Zooms are not as good optically, do people not seek to learn before pontificating?
bstolk: Given enough megapixels, wouldn't cropping an image in software have the same effect as using a longer lens?Yes, you lose some resolution, but that is not a big deal if you shoot your images for the web and such?
that's correct. Although your exposure may be slightly less accurate, it's the same thing. Bear in mind with the adapter though that you can post-crop the resulting 50mm in the same way, with same number of pixels.
RStyga: Kodak did pioneering things during the film era and continued in the digital age with some degree of the same spirit of innovation but never quite made it to establish itself. I'm not sure at all that JK is up to the task, i.e., using such an iconic brand name for mediocre profiteering. Let's hope for the best outcome, but I seriously doubt that JK can do to Kodak what Cosina has done to Voigtlander.
I hope they provide option for Adobe raw which is already open-source AFAIK. Why reinvent the wheel, when a universal wheel has already been designed?
dw2001: cute..but I've seen this kind of "creativity" like 1 million times before with lego, it's getting kind of booring..
Okay, but 'creativity' according to various academic studies in classrooms and workplaces is generally destroyed by this kind of thinking, in yourself and other people. If we want something different we can create it ourselves. I don't think its creative to criticise just because you don't like something; just don't praise so much.
Tom Goodman: I am as in favor of advancements in technology as the next person but this is just getting out of hand. I don't yearn for the days of old. I don't go to exhibitions because the images were made on a cellphone. And I certainly don't give a hoot whether the photographer used pure rainwater for the final bath or devised a new sharpening tool that takes voice commands. I just want images to change my perceptions and understandings. Let me put this another way: when is the last time you saw an announcement for an exhibition of paintings at MOMA or the Met that said the show will feature work done only with horse hair brushes?
For portraiture, I find that the subjects get nervous with a big ugly camera and whop-off lens. Most people like the look of these old cameras, and I find that they relax more.
It's also possible that they were designed when ergonomics was more of a selling point than ultimate technology speed or gadgetry.
Alberto Tanikawa: I have 20-13 vision, and I can read the e-mails on my phone from 30" away, 20" comfortably. I don't use my phone at 8" - I think that's ridiculous, or whoever does needs to have their eyes examined (nearsighted). Instead of ever increasing pixel density, how about higher contrast, much higher color gamut, more accurate color calibration from factory, better visibility in direct sunlight, higher efficiency, etc. These are much more worthwhile features to add than pixel density beyond 300dpi.
I partly agree but I don't have a problem with bigger and better. I have one level better than 20-20 vision and watch movies on my Galaxy note 1 phone from about 8 or 9". Could do with more resolution sometimes, but usually its irrelevant due to file sizes - either streamed or local, the shadow areas are usually a bit blocky. It's still good though.
D1N0: When you see a pixel you will die! Better safe than sorry. Of course when a screen is made for pc then 1080p is enough for a 27" screen. That is because pc-screens are safe and people do not need high resolution.
Actually Asus has a 4k monitor coming out but its a bit pricy for me. In my opinion, Ballmer at Microsoft should have been pushing better displays for Windows, working with key partners, like NEC and Samsung etc to get 4k and more years ago. I'm not saying tablets and mobile wouldn't be where they are today, but PCs would certainly seem more relevant.
peevee1: It is the first Samsung Android phone which I actually like. The shape means that it will be much more natural in the pocket around my leg, in my hand or around my face - not a flat slab, and for a phone that big it matters a lot.Back looks like leather (although knowing Samsung they probably saved 25 cents and it is actually not a real leather) - also much smarter decision then their usual plastic or even painted metal or glass, making a case basically unnecessary, saving on total weight and size.Looking for time/weather by pushing on it slightly instead of picking it up and turning up is handy.Now, bring it to T-Mobile, in pure Google (Nexus) form. Screen might be little smaller to.
@ claudio. Do you have a reference for your inference of the dangers of radio waves on human cells? As I understand it, there is no evidence to suggest harm, however people are advised to limit use by children due to thinner skulls and developing brains etc?
2001: Really curious but profoundly frustrated, I feel that manufacturers Samsung included although they are more adventurous than most really need to abandon the notion of a phone and make a fully fledged 7 inch device that covers as much as it possibly can. The notion of phone, tablet and computer is gradually eroding but being held back by incompetent and conservative ideas of what these devices do and who they are for. You can always count on the morons in market research to f.ck things up abysmally. I have and both love and am profoundly frustrated by my Galaxy Note 11, it does a lot but I can think of so many things that it could do so much more if it only had a 7inch screen and a flash drive of at least 64gb this is not rocket science it's more than feasible now. I hardly use the Note to make phone calls, using Skype on my computer 4 years ago! TO MAKE PHONE CALLS already has more than adequately prepared me for this paradigm ! When I look at my ilc's realizing that camera manufacturers finally made a digital camera worth using that they could have made 10 years ago is astonishing. When I look at a huge but ordinary consmer grade dslr with an lcd screen the size of a 35mm negative, it is grotesque, repulsive and quaint. What ever my feelings may be from day to day towards this camera, I thank God I never have to use it again. This is how I feel and I'm sure many consumers feel about woefully conservative and incapacitated technology that is antique even before it's purchased. Give me a fully functioning device! I don't care whether you call it a tablet a phone or a computer ! Just give me something that is smaller than a paperback that works! Half measures don't count. The Note 3 may be a nice intention but given the technology available right now it's far from satisfactory.
Not really sure what you want. Do you just want a Note 3 that is 7 inches with 64GB built in storage?
How much more could you do with such a device compared to a Note 3 with 64GB micro SD at approx 6 inches?
I kind of agree with you, and am a bit peeved the Galaxy Mega is not oled and doesn't have an s- pen. But I still don't get why you're annoyed, or what is available right now that is missing?
JABB66: Casio did it before...
and Samsung imitates them already in 2009...
I've never owned that Casio model or any Casio phone or camera; I remember thinking when it came out, that whilst Casio may have been ahead of the game, the smartphone aspects were unlikely to be in the same league as Samsung / Apple.
salla30: wasted opportunity, but still a "C" for trying
older gen tech? why?low screen res on a device intended for video and photographic use? why? especially when one of the key USP's of the S4 is it's HD screen, why put a quarter screen res on the camera version?Dual core processor instead of quad core? why? For HD video playback and snappy photo handling, why not quad core?
Dear oh dear. Its a mediocre camera with an old-gen phone. And they'll still probably want 800 usd for it or something silly.
Now, come on!! You can definitely do better, Samsung! Or is it a political move from inside the company to let this hybrid idea fail?
PS... I would really be a taker on this idea if it gave me a good P&S plus a state of the art phone to AT LEAST improve on my existing galaxy note 1. I love the idea and think its THE way forward, hence frustration
I don't know, maybe they needed to recoup some of the cost of the bigger camera sensor and lens and still hit a low enough price point?
I agree with you though really. It would have been nice to see all the specs from the s4. But the big failing here is the size of the lens. It's too big for what it's giving us. At that size, I would expect faster glass, a much smaller zoom or just a good prime, and a bigger camera sensor. Truth be told, these days I would only be willing to add an extra 3 or 4 millimeters depth to my Galaxy note phone, and that would have to be a fixed lens so I don't worry about breaking a zoom in my pocket, and I would also want a battery pack / case option that made the whole thing the same depth so it would slide into pocket easier than with the lens protruding.
I think I'd prefer this as a black and white render, but the context creates a strong piece of art - the subject's joy and excitement regarding wedding, and perhaps concern or bravery regarding overseas posting, father's pride regarding son being brave and also to be married, country's pride in brave soldiers, country and family -especially mother who is absent - wishing to also protect young boys / men, a long life left to live and wondering how it will be lived, wives missing husbands, etc etc : complex set of opposing emotions all present at the same time...
keepreal: This is another example of technology getting out of hand. As I went digital, I had to familiarise myself with all sorts of concepts only to subsequently dispose of most of them, like having twenty two subject modes, none of which are needed for serious photography where the camera operator still knows what he is doing and remains in control.
I am not saying that this Sigma device is unnecessary, just that it ought to be in the labs of manufacturers. If one is using high quality equipment where fine tuning to this degree makes sense, for the exorbitant amounts one has to pay, let them get it right before the user gets to buy anything or, if we are talking about an option like adjusting the autofocus seek range, let them build that into the camera to adjust, where it should be in the first place, so that one is not stuck with one setting per shooting session.
Everything now is becoming so unnecessarily complicated that soon you will need training just to suck eggs.
Actually, if you've bought Sigma lenses before only to find the focus isn't spot on with your camera, or - a few years later- your new camera does not work with the Sigma lenses for some reason known only to Canon or Nikon etc - then this device is very interesting.
It means you might buy Sigma lenses in relative confidence, knowing you can update the firmware or focus as required without shipping to Sigma.
And Sigma makes some excellent lenses.
Tape5: So any subject matter in the world ( preferably a controversial one ) that is in any imaginable way related to a photo or some photos or someone's photos, is fit to be reviewed as a photographic issue?
I suggest an article featuring fast cars and speed cameras.
Fair point. For myself, I may not have seen this if it hadn't been on dpreview, and I think this composite piece is interesting as it evokes a subtle criticism of recent socio-technical developments - and perhaps with the text removed - would it maybe have met with success in the photography or art worlds too?