I am sorry, but I am just feeling these-like posts are a kind of a masked advertising campaign is sense "Oh look, how many people making photos with mobile phones. They are now driving the world of photography!"...W.r.t. the subject of article I think it needs to be strongly pointed out the reason for what is going on. I don't think people are not being able to appreciate the quality of the professional photograph anymore. Oh yes, they actually can. Otherwise, the fashion photography would have already been made by amateurs. On the other hand, as many have said, newspapers are not profitable anymore. No money - no professional photography. No need to invent some fictional revolutions...Also, immediacy of mobile phone is very nice, but actually really useful in some extreme cases. Not many people check news the whole day, at least I hope it is so...
I have NX200, which in many facets is a similar camera. While it has subpar low-light AF performance, Samsung still does not issue an update. In the same time it vividly supports the new models. A really honest approach I would say...
ecube: I am not a pixel peeper and my eyes is not as sharp as it was 40 or 50 years ago. But I do not understand why the comparison sample photos are of different magnification and resolution (pixel) setting, and lighting. I understand the difficulty in comparing two different SYSTEMS (i.e. Nikon v. Canon v. Sony), however, what is so difficult in comparing a D3100 v. D3200 using the exact PRIME lens (not similar) on the two bodies, using a jig to ensure exact distance and FOCUS, and identical resolution (pixel) setting, while balance, lighting and other camera settings. For the D3200, add shots at the higher PIXEL setting not available in the D3100. IMHO, the comparison methodology used here is acceptable for a high school science class.
Actually, there is a problem with d3200 shots in raw, the exposure is higher compared to other cameras. This makes comparing noise levels troublesome - more exposure means more noise accumulated, also, shadows are brighter, noise is more easily seen. Seems camera sample has some issues with metering, since in jpeg exposure is correct. imho, shots in raw should be redone to make raw comparison more even...
WTF? Why is the exposure so high compared to other cameras???
btw, hard to judge noise in the shots made
Henrik Herranen: Yet another Apple (eyeFön eyePäd whatevøh) article. Now, honestly dpreview! Decreasing the signal-to-noise ratio really starts to annoy me!
But, of course, writing wishy-washy articles like this must be easier than to do more hardcore stuff, like, you know, lens reviews. Just in case you haven't noticed, your last lens review was done in September 2010, THAT'S MORE THAN ONE YEAR AGO!
(Disclaimer: No, I am not going to threaten to boycot dpreview. But my feeling is that the focus of your site is shifting further and further away from the kind of photography I am interested in.)
I could not agree more!
The article is hardly about the title. It is about the sales figures, popularity of iPhone etc. The only point I saw is about shooting not being noticed, but also the smarthphone is not the best camera to do it.
Shooting with smarthphone was always more conventional, but certainly iPhone with its sleek case will never be able to match the average quality of point and shoot. And here one very important question arises: how much the quality of the photograph is acceptable? Of course, it depends. And what if we persuade people that it acceptable? We will make shooting with iPhone fashionable - via articles, via statistics at popular photo hosters, via immense promoting... And it seems that Apple is just pursuing such a policy in recent months.
nobblynoel: Eight megapixels...3264x2448. Backside illuminated sensor...73% more light per pixel than iPhone 4. 33% faster capture. Hybrid IR filter, better color accuracy and uniformity. Five element lens, 30% more sharpness, f/2.4 aperture. Face detection, better white balance, and fast photos.
it is impossible to get decent point-and-shoot camera quality on the phone.the size of the sensor matters.actually, the whole presentation was a lot of marketing(but damned good), and 10% of reasonable treatment of facts.
Still, one-stop difference between the competition. This complies with the theory, as someone said. The pity thing here is the heavy noise in shadows and the absence of clarity at the base iso which, in turn, diminishes benefits of the pixel growth... Let's look forward to the nex's shots.
BTW, thanks DPreview for the update.