Thanks for the studio test scene pictures, dpreview. Glad to see them again.
TheProv: Are you serious? Really? Are you the same of DPreview or are you stealing only the name?It takes bravery to call this "camera review".Even I could do this "camera review".
Please be serious and start doing cameraphone reviews at the level I can see on your mother site (?) and for wich I know you are able to.
+1. They need to call this place dp blog or something, because its lack of uniform testing is getting annoying. They need to backdate to the Nokia 920 and start shooting their test scene on every phone since then.
Gadgety: DP Review. It makes sense to launch a DPReview mobile site, provided you are able to keep some of your key qualities. One of those is sharing a format among the reviews. Having checked this review out I looked into the Nokia Lumia 920, but unless I'm mistaken it follows an entirely different layout, sections are different, making comparison difficult. You want to have a large audience I suggest you get your review format aligned so that I can tell all reviews are off the same site. In addition, comparisons with various mobile phones within the article would provide some value as well. Good luck.
Agreed. I'm completely loss on this site. The reviews on this site are all over the place since the two Nokia 920 articles.
Dp should at least shoot the test scene for every phone.
Meh. So they're trying to be the "Apple" or "Beats/Bose" of photo printing? In this day and age, I don't think I'd go out to get a picture printed. Perhaps they expect to market to the masses and hope they create a printing craze. I simply don't think the market is there. And those who do print aren't likely to go to what seems to be an overpriced print center.
Heh, can we get a Pentax Q mount (1/2.3) to Pentax K (Full Frame)? If they can pack the whole lens image into that tiny sensor, what'd the gain be? 5 stops?
MonkRX: Design clearly implies sensor will be on the body, not the lens. (Sensor cut out on the body, and a lens opening on the rear of the lens barrel). So I'm assuming Polaroid themselves said that the lenses would carry the sensor, not the body. If not, I have no idea why this is reported the way it is.
Checked with other sources, and they also confirm the mismatch between the mockups and the actual design plan. Polaroid intends to place sensors in the lens. Meh. Hopefully the Android hardware is respectable. Any idea if the LCD was any decent? Better or worse than the Galaxy Camera? Or was it something out of some junky device.
Design clearly implies sensor will be on the body, not the lens. (Sensor cut out on the body, and a lens opening on the rear of the lens barrel). So I'm assuming Polaroid themselves said that the lenses would carry the sensor, not the body. If not, I have no idea why this is reported the way it is.
Yeah that's terrible. Wacom and N-Trig are probably the #1 and #2 industry standard for active digitizer pens too. Its probably just an Android limitation. There probably isn't a standard "Pressure" level for touch points yet. If Android natively supports pressure, I bet it would be easy for apps to support universally.
CyberAngel: So the back plane or display is basically a Galaxy SIIIbut you can't make any phone callsAt least you can download and install any Android application for picturesthus doing some manipulation directly in the cameraMaybe Skype works?
The only problem is that it appears that it has no traditional voice microphone or earpeice. I'm sure there is a loud speaker for video play back and microphone for the video recording, but its not really the same. I suppose a headset would solve those issues.
I hate it when dpreview uses the phrase "the same sensor". Its been thrown around in reviews like the when comparing the K-5/K-x/K-r to the Nikon series.
If dpreview tosses around that phrase again, they should really back it up. Like, "The K5 II uses the same Sony IMX139LQJ Exmor CMOS (this is actually the model number for a smaller sensor) as the K5. Pentax reps say they've chosen a higher bin.." etc. Even something as simple as "Pentax confirms this is the same sensor". Or if dpreview has no idea, something simplier like "same resolution sensor as the K5". At least you leave the readers thinking "hey, it could perform better if they kept the resolution the same".
Otherwise, dpreview is potentially hurting the K5 II's press release. Many people attribute "same sensor" with "same performance". It could be very likely that this is a slightly better sensor. Combine that with the new processing, it could be half a stop or better in noise performance.
Anyway, just pointing that out.
Bleh. Nokia should have just asked Sony to develop an 8MP BSI sensor of the same size. I bet it would have performed better.
Alizarine: This development is a true innovation!
I can now see SLRs coming back to their old form... now lighter without the bulky batteries. It's going to be a hassle should they be sprayed on inside the bodies, I guess it should still be a removable part, albeit much, much thinner, like some SD or CF card. That way the camera would not become a "disposable" one...
The thin cells aren't going to hold the same capacity as larger cells. DSLRs have bulky batteries because the consumers want the capacity over the size advantage.
This new painting battery idea is still based on Lithium Ion. It probably holds a similar amount of power for its size compared to conventional Li-ion cells.
This is probably better suited to LOW power devices, such as E-readers (Kindle, Nook), Smart watches, bluetooth heaadsets, etc.
MonkRX: Just going to echo some comments here: I was a bit taken back after reading the first page of the review. Totally different style writing, so I went and checked and who wrote it. Jeff Keller is a great reviewer, but I expected a dpreview review. That's why I like this place, the style of writing, the analysis, and the objective point of view.
Jeff's writing is filled with "I's" and opinion-like statements. Its a bit off putting. While I appreciate dpreview's recruitment of Jeff, I'd prefer if future reviews of "popular" cameras (like Pentax's first APS-C mirrorless) be written by dpreview staff. I value the opinions and observations they make. I don't mean to discount Jeff's observations... I think he should be left to do compact round ups or other more minor reviews, where people only read those reviews to check for dp's robust lab/objective tests.
Barney, its unfortunate that you wouldn't have time to release the review of the K01 in a timely manner if it was done in house. Still, I'd love to see reviewing priority on new designs/interfaces, and perhaps leave Jeff to review "old bodies with new sensors".
I can't help but feel that dpreview staff would have been slightly more detailed, more descriptive, and more analytical about the handling of the K01. Like the K7 and K5, there were key sentences that described and compared its grip and handling, commending its small design yet comfortable grip. These are things I'm looking to find in the K01 review, but they remain absent, or under described.
If you guys intend to have Jeff review new bodies/interfaces (Like the Pentax Q), I highly suggest expanding on the interface/handling parts of the review to give users a better view of the camera as a whole. I'd love to see the collaborative opinion of the handling of such bodies.
Just going to echo some comments here: I was a bit taken back after reading the first page of the review. Totally different style writing, so I went and checked and who wrote it. Jeff Keller is a great reviewer, but I expected a dpreview review. That's why I like this place, the style of writing, the analysis, and the objective point of view.
shaocaholica: Urgh. Why can't Apple just give devs and their own camera team access to the raw data and save it as something like a DNG. Also manual exposure and white balance. Its all happening in the background so its not like they need to write any low level code for it.
+1Until out of the camera (phone) JPEGs are perfect, RAW is the only solution.
And since everyone has a different opinion of perfect, RAW is best starting point to process images.
I also agree with the ability to have RAW output on capture devices. Sometimes I'm caught with a P&S or a phone camera that has excessive saturation and a crazy gamma curve. These aren't the best in image quality out there, but their potential is ruined if users are only limited to its built in processing. I bet with my older phones, I could literally double the effective resolution if I was allowed to process the RAW myself. (Its noise reduction is extremely destructive).
MonkRX: The last 5 years of Casio Cameras have already been doing this.
How to do it:Step 1:Set to lower than max resolution. Step 2: Zoom.
It will show you three different types of zoom on the graduated zoom marker, in this order:
1. Optical Zoom. All images here are "over sampled", then resized to the chosen output resolution.2. Digital Crop. All images here are crops of the full size image. Less "over sampling" as the zoom level increases.3. Digital Zoom - Classic "enlarge to output resolution" mode.
GJ Nokia for making it sound like a brand new concept.
To be honest, I think Nokia should be offering even lower resolutions. If their "over sampling" isn't some basic software algorithim, and actually has some excellent hardware/software pixel binning and noise reduction... Nokia could be creating the perfect Facebook camera. Low resolution with excellent low light sensitivity. (40MP down to less than 1MP). Imagine all the drunk clubbing showing up on FB, super sharp.
Dheorl Wrote: "3MP really isn't much over a HD screen. Not sure what max upload size for flickr and FB is though."
Yeah. 1920x1200 is about 2MP. My dated 4:3 CRT is 2048x1536, about 3MP. According to dpreview, FB's new photo viewer is max 960 x 960. I think Google+ is a bit higher than that. I'm just under the assumption that most people take pictures for FB. So offering a very high quality 1MP image would be perfect for those kinds of users.
For us, I want a 120MP sensor so I can get some really good 12MP pictures ;)
@LensBeginner, Heh, I guess you don't know Casio. Casio was the first to market with a 10MP CCD Sensor in a compact consumer camera. Bleeding edge, just like this Nokia. It offers all the advantages that the Nokia is currently offering, while also remaining easy to use. It has more flexibility than Nokia's offering purely because it has an optical zoom, so zooming did not compromise quality (in this case, lowing the amount of pixels to bin).
Casio used to be a pioneer and a leader in consumer cameras, offering some of the best in class image quality (See Casio Z-750, P700, FH100 reviews here on dpreview), best in class UI, and arguably still some of the best AE, AWB, and Auto ISO. They're severely underrated.
The last 5 years of Casio Cameras have already been doing this.
Francis Carver: Gee-whiz, thanks for (almost) nothing, Sir.
"DSLRs will always stay at the top' Yamaki told us - 'the benefit of a DSLR is of course the optical viewfinder."
Interesting. Of course:
1. DSLRs will probably go bye-bye in 8-10 years time.
2. You do not have to have a mirror in a camera for it to have an optical VF. Doesn't Mr. Yamaki know this, I wonder?
Re. the SD1 -- that is probably the most crazily priced DSLR body out there at the moment. What were they thinking, for cripe's sake?Also, how about putting some VIDEO FEATURES into your cameras, like everybody else is already doing for quite some time, Sigma?
Your vision isn't taking into account the advance of display and sensor technology. EVFs will get to a point where they are better than OVFs. The new high resolution EVFs from Sony are a testament to that (and now add two more generations for technology leaps and tell me OVF is better in every case).
In the future, imaging sensors will perform so well in low light that it'll be better to use live view over OVF. Manual focus lenses will be easier to focus on live view over OVF. Captured dynamic range is easier with live view. The actual viewable image is 100% in live view.
The captured image is on the sensor - not the optical view finder. Once electronic displays catch up, OVFs will have little going for them.
Neodp: Obviously, Casio does not take photography seriously. They're Just fishing for uninformed buyers. How's that working for you Casio?
Can we please, just make a better camera. People, please don't buy poor performing cameras. Maybe they will catch a clue.
Thank you DPR.
Auto exposure is almost always spot on, often better than the other Sony/Canon compacts that I've used in the past. The only thing lacking is per-pixel sharpness.
And frankly, that's the last thing I look for in a point and shoot. Those 16MP in Casio's flagship are going to be resized into 60KB 960x720 facebook images for most, and at best, a nice 4 x 6 image. For most people, the Casio will provide the best results and the ease of use for its target audience.
It just no longer has class leading sharpness, which is currently a very overrated form of measuring performance. (The general excuse is that any other color or slight exposure abnormalities can be fixed in post - something most people don't want/have time to do).