About time! Works like a charm for my RX-100. No more converting to DNG.
technic: lots of new products from Canon lately and mostly very, very incremental upgrades. Is the whole R&D department in winter sleep or are they making so much money that the beancounters think they can get away with warmed up versions of the cameras from a few years ago?
Or, they got completely blindsided by the competition and are scrambling to catch up (in the meantime, here are some minor distractions while we R&D something else!)
Sadly, an incremental update (mostly auxiliary functions and software?!) that doesn't come close to catching up with the RX-100 or even Fuji's natty new compact.
I'm a long-standing Canon fun, and hung on to my S95 for years (briefly flirted w the S100 and then returned it). Just switched to the RX-100 this past weekend. Looks like it'll take a while for Canon to catch up again.
(I do miss Canon's IS and manual mode tho.)
What I need to know is whether the supposedly improved low light performance actually pans out in real world use.
There aren't any samples, which worries me (surely they'd show it off if it were really an impressive buff over previous phones).
So much sharpening in the gallery images.... and where are the low light images?
(looks like I'll stick to my 4S and not sell/upgrade for the first time in 4 years)
panpen: I have a DP2 and it is as good as my M8 with 28mm Elmarit third version at iso 100 and 200. Anything above 400 is for black and white as color is completely lost. While the DP2 is an amazing camera that replaced my $4k M8 with a manual lens, I would never pay $1k for the Merill version. If iso 400 and 800 were good I would have given it a second thought. In the last two months Adorama had tons of DP1 and DP2 demos or E+ for less than $300. $1000 is a stretch even for a great camera like Sigma DP
Foveon sensors outresolve APS-C by quite a bit. This is a specialised piece of kit, for those who want unique and unmatched colour reproduction at DLSR resolution in a mid-sized compact body.
It's almost like comparing slide film to print film...
Been waiting for a high IQ, handy and affordable Foveon camera for ages. (Film-like digital capture ftw!)
Bumping it up to APC-S does it for me. I'm on the hunt for a unit of this.
It's still not clear how the 808 stacks up against compact cameras (although the comparison test looks decent vs the Canon S95)
At any rate, I think I've just found my answer to what spare phone to buy when I travel (and need a 2nd phone to roam with)
D1N0: too bad decent camera's dont run on iOs or Android (and no the iPhone is not a decent camera you morons!)
A decent camera is a well-utilised camera.
Luke Kaven: I'm having a hard time understanding how one can market a set of tools for "photojournalism" that surely renders all of your work unpublishable by journalistic standards.
Hipstamatic isn't Photoshop (half the tools of which are digital analogues of traditional darkroom post-processing techniques)
sean000: Interesting story to juxtapose with Kate Bevan's anti-Instagram rant. It's a wonderful photograph. But does the art filter make the photograph better or worse? I like the photo and I like the look and mood the filter creates. I would probably like the photo without the filter effect as well. Any time you use effects like these you run the risk of alienating some viewers who find it gimmicky, but you may also wow some viewers who think it is really cool. Either way the photograph needs to be a good one, and this one definitely is in my opinion.
But as Luke Kaven commented, I would think that most journalistic photo editors would reject this shot because of the filter. New York Times Magazine is of course a features publication, so it can get away with obviously manipulated images. For straight news reporting, the audience might wonder if the contents have been altered as well as the colors. Was that kit really there, or did the photographer add it?
hmmm... slapping a glass filter on one's lens might give a similar effect no?
szlevi: Apple's whole implementation sucks, big time. The iPhone 4S employs the same Sony EXMOR R sensor like my year-old Xperia arc yet my phone blows it out of the water...Old but representative: http://www.xperiablog.net/2011/10/16/camera-shootout-iphone-4s-versus-xperia-arc/
erm... isn't the Xperia the one on the right in your link (washed out colours on the pink flowers, serious purple haze on the fold-table)?
Win some, lose some from shot to shot, but it doesn't seem superior to the 4S by any means.
alfpang: Just tried on my 4S--Worth the price for night mode alone (true slow shutter up to 1 sec exposure).
The ability to take useable pics in a dark room w live preview was quite impressive, but it does chew up battery life (fair trade off for a serious functionality boost).
Lossless jpegs are about 10mb each. Haven't tried downloading the TIFFs
Apparently it's a bug - it is supposed to work w the iPad 3, and hard-installing the app via iTunes works. Makes sense since Nightcap works w the iPad.
645 Pro's creator is apparently working on a patch.
Just tried on my 4S--Worth the price for night mode alone (true slow shutter up to 1 sec exposure).
migus: It's still far from 'retina' (326dpi) but much improved display. I hoped for AMOLED w/ deeper black than the typical milky-gray IPS... Not convinced yet that i ever need an iPad, though one could use it for photos - as an expensive digital frame :-).
My main interest for such toys would be in maps/GPS and PDF papers/magazines... basically a hi-res reader. Again, i'd rather save my eyes w/ e-ink or a friendlier display (not backlit). Mitch
"Retina" is just a marketing label for "pixels invisible to the naked eye during normal use"
I just tried to download iPhoto for my 3GS and I got the error:
"This app is incompatible with this iPHone
This app requires a front facing camera"
What the heck apple?????????
It's like Light Room saying it won't install because I don't have a webcam?????
iPhoto takes a while to crunch images even on a 4S (I have it on mine). 3GS is likely not going to be up to the task (maybe that camera thing was just a standard boilerplate caveat)
Stollen1234: apple LTE not compatible with LTE in Germany..this is a scandal..how could apple claim that the new Ipad is world tablet if the high speed connection is not compatible with major parts of Europe such Germany and many other countries???
Same for Singapore, but that's because the frequencies used for 4G LTE in the US/iPad are used for other traffic already (including 3G traffic) elsewhere -- that's a matter for the telcos managing the bandwidth to decide, based on market demand for 4G etc. It's still world-ready in terms of 3G.
Finally the iPad I've been waiting for (Retina or bust!).
If nothing else, it's going to up the game across the whole industry in terms of what "standard" display resolutions can/should be. That can't be bad even for users of competing devices.
Can we have some video samples under indoor lighting (esp fluorescent) please?