2eyesee: Just awful smearing of detail, even at base ISO. It really shows in the foliage - take a look at image #22. It looks like a painting.
That's at 24mm, but it doesn't seem to improve much as you start to zoom - take a look at image #11 at 125mm.
A slow, overly ambitious lens + small sensor = terrible IQ. No surprises there. But many people just view images on-screen, so I guess the sort of people who would buy a camera like this might be happy with it.
A lot of these all in ones have severe in camera processing regarding noise reduction. For the sharpest shots noise reduction needs to bet set to the lowest setting and the aperature controlled to lessen diffraction. And of course the lowest iso is also ideal. Look for shots where the user has specified the in camera process settings. I have yet to test one of these all in ones myself so I am not sure about other factors at the 200-250mm and above or without a tripod. Again diffraction is also a real concern especially when the aperture is not specified.I recall reading that this review site is forced to capture pics at the default in camera settings.
georgievv: I think these samples do not represent best of what the camera is capable of or intended for. Having a 2000mm lens does not mean that you can take a clear photo of something a mile away. But the same 2000mm is ideal for wild life photography. Many DPR members already have the camera and are getting amazing shots of birds. See this flickr gallery of a DPR member myssvictoria to get a feeling of what the camera and lens is really capable of:https://www.flickr.com/photos/myssvictoria/sets/72157651158420940//
For the sharpest shots noise reduction needs to bet set to the lowest setting and the aperature controlled to lessen diffraction. And of course the lowest iso is also ideal. Look for shots where the user has specified the in camera process settings. I have yet to test one of these all in ones myself so I am not sure about other factors at the 200-250mm and above or without a tripod. Again diffraction is also a real concern especially when the aperture is not specified. This review site is forced to use default in camera settings .
Photo-Wiz: Is it just me, or do these shots seem slightly hazy and not very sharp.
I suspect the default noise reduction settings are severe. If you look around you can find pics by people who turn this to the lowest setting and shoot only at iso 100. I found the quality was much sharper. Although I am not sure how sharp at zoom above 200-250mm since alot of the online pics are downsized. I need to test one for myself.
Azurael: Am I going mad? All the comments here are really positive, but to my eyes, this looks dreadful. In most of the wide shots, this _camera_ has worse IQ than my _smartphone_ in broad daylight. Even £50 Fujis can do better than that. And the noise... Where on Earth did they find that sensor? 2004?!
Some images at the long end of the zoom (like the Eagle) show really poor contrast, too... It was pretty obvious ISO 1600 would look like a watercolour, so I'll discount the mess that is that Snowy Owl pic.
I'm sure I'm going to get called a pixel peeper, but I was judging based on the largest gallery view, which is smaller than a lot of prints I'd like to make?
On the other hand, the first Lynx shot is quite nice. What's going on?! I think the combination of very clumsy noise reduction with rather a lot of oversharpening isn't doing it any favours. Are there controls for this on the camera? I see it doesn't have RAW, which is disappointing, it might have been possible to fix the output...
Also don't underestimate noise reduction "smearing". I think the default settings are severe.
To avoid the " smeared" look (as in these zoom shots) with these sensor lens combos one must only capture at ISO 100 and turn noise reduction to the lowest setting. Am I wrong? I have seen sharper 200mm images coming from these all in ones before but have never owned one.
beholder1: Beautiful Capture! Fantastic lighting and color resolution. I'm sold on it! ;)
Good question. Probably through DPR since I visit the site daily for news. ;) Plus I have been researching the Canon SX50 and other bridge camera's for a year now.
Beautiful Capture! Fantastic lighting and color resolution. I'm sold on it! ;)
Mikhail Tal: How did this get such a low rating? So many people gave just 3/5? One gave 2.5/5? This is like literally the best photograph ever taken in the history of mankind.
There are ten bars there not five.
Thank you for adding ' Withdraw post' in the options menu! Salutations in store!
Camediadude: Add my vote to: no evf, never going to buy it
Here shown are the advantages of either perspectives. :)http://blog.neocamera.com/?p=1248
Here is a hypothesis: One word matters most in the reason why for "candid" moving photography, 'Stability'. An extension of the eye and also of the co-ordination system around a point of greatest stability. More specifically "Familiar" stability. The hand eye coordination is more fine nearest... well you can figure that out. What kind of photographers need the greatest assurance of stability in candid moments (assuming they are not in a fixed location. ) Sports perhaps and then some. Then again its just another educated guess that happens to be from another stranger such as I.
PaulRivers: I'm delighted to see the studio shots, and I real review!...sorta...
But other than the studio shots, it seems to be another "don't want to answer any serious questions for fear of offending someone" kind of review.
Where is the direct comparison to the Canon s100? Or the Sony rx100? Or a dslr? Or an iPhone 4s? Or...anything.
And this marketing friendly quote - "Nokia has also included a raft of enthusiast-friendly photographic features in the 808 including manual control over white balance, ISO and exposure (via exposure compensation and bracketing)."
Absolutely no mention of probably the most important manual control on a camera this size - shutter priority (aperture priority would be important on a dslr, but not on a camera this size, making shutter priority the #1 feature).
It's a really interesting camera, and I'm really happy to see dpreview put up studio shots for a direct comparison. But no direct comparisons to other cameras, or mention of the lack of shutter priority...
Correction: Technically I am not qualified to speak for 'Apple' on how they expose shots or engage the camera shutter. I do however wish DPReview would allow me to delete a certain of my posts! ;)
Scratch that. I just realized it is a "filter" effect after-all. It looks like screen-shots of the phone are taken while filming to mimic the effect. "Mattebox" cam does show shutter speed and ISO whilst filming with the option to lock-in the exposure. I will have to look into any "jail-broken" options. http://www.iphoneography.com/journal/2009/11/26/new-iphone-photo-app-slow-shutter.htmlAlso refer to "Magic Shutter" review on the same 'iPhoneography' blog.The iphone lacks a physical shutter. It is a simulated shutter. Control over any "shutter" is only a simulation i.e. - "filter or mask". The fixed aperture and sensor size is really what decides the speed at which a exposure consumer photo can be taken without mar to general appeal.I never really cared to look into this further until now. Thanks for helping me clarify some confusion.
Yes. But, unfortunately, nothing above half a second. No jail break required. I discovered the app from the following article: http://www.dpreview.com/articles/1493430965/mobile-imaging-apps-an-overview . Notice the app I use is mentioned under "Filter effects Apps" as "also worth a look". I use the iOS app "SlowShutter".
malcolm82: From Engadget:"Ultimately, there's plenty of reason to believe the BBC's project head, Tim Plyming, when he says that "8K is the maximum the human eye can understand" and that "it's the end of the resolution story.""
That's only true for a field of view equivalent to about 40mm (or about 55-60° diagonal). For ultra wide angle viewing we need much higher.
"Then" of course our visually data induced brains will have all known realms of visual information processing. E.G. - http://gizmodo.com/5843117/scientists-reconstruct-video-clips-from-brain-activity . At least that is where it looks like a few disciplines are heading. Can you see ad-space streamed live to your visual cortex? How is that for real-time quality? Of course if so the photographic possibilities become almost an issue of time and of distances traveled in real-time. Quality will be only reduced by neural visual capacity. - * A real Brain "Boink"! ;) P.S.- if you read the linked page you will see I was quoting the author when I spoke of 20\20 central vision acuity. Please refer to his cites on request. Oh "simple", of course its not simple but its a start to the gravity of the situation. Private messaging is allowed here too btw. ;)
Human central vision is 20/20. Our central angle of view is 40°-60°. http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/cameras-vs-human-eye.htmYou certainly wouldn't have the imax experience at home using that resolution unless fixed periphery angles could be sythesized. Perhaps with help of this instruction : http://digital-photography-school.com/a-camera-that-shoots-at-a-trillion-frames-per-second , thereby perhaps absolving all of our visual concerns 'til "then".
Although the manufacturer does not, there are apps for manual shutter speed control on specific OS/IOS devices. Just to clarify. One of the great things about a smartphone camera is the possibility to store new software whilst having cellular connectivity for data.