This post brought to you by Hasselblad
The answer is yes.
Have you seen the images that come out of the best cameras in the world? They suck. They're low contrast, boring, and entirely unexciting. I'm talking about every single camera from the cheapest compact to the F5/1D. In fact, the latter produce the worst images of all. Boring. Commonplace. Pedestrian.
Everywhere around us are amazing, fabulous images with bright colors and interesting subjects with backgrounds that seem unbelievably interesting and people without saggy skin or hair out of place. And every single one of them has had hours of professional work done in a photo manipulation program to make them that way.
I stopped (mostly) shooting in RAW because I realized that if I had to fiddle with every shot I took to get the best out of it (and, lets face it, you do), photography would be my only hobby and take up all my time. Sorry, I want a camera that makes pretty images without all the post. And it's easier to just take a phone pic and let it auto-adjust.
"fast wireless charging that can take the battery from empty to full in approximately two hours"
Um, sorry. I have a hard time counting that as "fast." A 5-10 minute charge to, say, 80% would be fast and might make up for a lack of replaceable battery. And a 128GB standard and and a $50-75, 256GB expanded memory option upgrade would (for me) make up for the lack of an SD card.
While I was intrigued by the Note, I think I'll stick with LG for the time being.
Scales USA: While the images are ok for a low cost point and shoot, for $1300, there is a huge disconnect.
The ISO 6400 portraits were so noisy, that when I saw them, I thought something was wrong.
I had been thinking of getting a one inch sensor camera, but have scrapped that idea.
mosc is right. You say you remember ASA. Good - think back to a time when you were shooting film that you used 6400 film with a 2.8 lens.
Right - that would be just about never, because they didn't make a color consumer film at 6400 ISO. Konica 3200 was about the fastest color you could get, and it's aesthetic was similar to making a photo using colored golf balls as your grain. 800 was barely usable except for snapshots, and if you truly loved your prints you'd try not to go above 200. Even black and white was dicey if you pushed tri-X film past 1250, or even Tmax for that matter.
The ISO on todays sensor's, if you really remember film photography, is absolute magic plain and simple. If you want "more" from a camera, go drop $2500 on a body. Otherwise you'll be stuck with the "mediocrity" of what we could only dream of 30 years ago.
yzhenkai: Is this camera suitalbe for my two-year old son? He breaks everything.
No, the controls are likely beyond his dexterity. It's probably not easily breakable, though. I carry a "rugged" P&S for work (Lumix TS-3, similar ruggedness spec) and have dropped it on concrete from chest height, onto a wooden floor from 8-9' (getting in and out of a scuttle to an overhead space), and it resides in an unpadded, outside pocket on an electricians pouch that gets tossed into the back of my van/truck on a daily basis. It's still waterproof, still takes decent pictures (for what it is), and still operates just fine.
In the 5 years prior, I damaged/destroyed two other pannys, a sony, and a canon compact. The tough camera has been reliable.
lem12: Too many features for too small of a sensor. Fix it with 1/1.7 sensor and I'll buy it.
You're all just wannabes if you're not shooting full frame. Oly should make this FF if they want anyone with any kind of photographic sense to buy it.
Even if they made this is a micro 4/3, it would still be behind the times. I don't see why they make anything smaller than DX. And I wouldn't buy it unless it had an f1.4 lens anyway.
1" sensor - that's fine if you're grandma is taking pictures of her cat, but I personally wouldn't by anything that wasn't a micro 4/3 for an underwater camera. - or any camera for that matter.
1/1.7? Total cop-out. 1" sensor is the smallest possible sensor that can produce a reasonable image.
JordanAT: How good is the "fisheye" lens, and how does it look.
I use a Panasonic TS-4 (I think) for technical photos of buildings - investigations where the camera is likely to get dropped/banged/hit and I've destroyed two regular pannys, a canon, and a sony over the years. I don't usually need a really wide angle, but there are placed which are just very small/tight where having something in the 15-20mm range for a wide "location" shot before taking detailed pictures of damage would be nice to have. At $130, that w/a adapter seems pretty dear.
Oh - any remote shutter release options other than a phone?
Thanks. I never have to change settings remotely, just actuate the shutter. I use it to take pictures of things (monitors, cracks, conditions) using a selfie stick so that I need to use a ladder less often. Right now I use the self timer, but it's far from ideal.
I'm usually in dark areas (think overheads, foundations, attics), so a brighter lens is a big plus; also, the RAW is a big deal since I'm looking specifically for details in the photos on a typical shoot. That's the advantage (for me) of the TG-4 over the TG-860.
How good is the "fisheye" lens, and how does it look.
Did Sony write the noise reduction software? I haven't seen watercolors like that since the Victorian era.
These could be almost any day, most of the time. Work is getting done, plans are being prepared, true contemplative evaluation is occurring.
When we see the photos chosen to represent any day, we see only the exceptionally emotional ones - smiles, laughter, shouting, extreme anger, crushing grief. But even in the best and worst of times, this is what we look like except in those fleeting moments.
Here at DPR we have grown so accustomed to truly spectacular photography. And everywhere on the internet where we self-curate - FB, Instagram, Vine, Snapchat - we see the high- and low-lights. The instant in a day when our emotions are at their peak. These shots really remind us how pedestrian life is most of the time - even at it's most tense.
StevenE: The profession of photography is under serious attack. There are good amateurs willing to give away their work just for the right to brag that they were published. And these pop musicians today are not artists so much as products themselves ... packaged and sold by a tightly controlled and monitored team ... the paying public are mostly suckers buying the same thing over and over again, convinced by marketing that it's "newer and edgier" than last years "newest and edgiest" recycled thing.
Musicians, fwiw, are in the same boat. "There are good amateurs willing to give away their work just for the right to brag that they played gigs."
Any profession where there are low barriers to entry deals with this. You become great (a pop star), you find a niche where your combination of talents adds value, or you find another career.
torsfjall: Rather weak, didn't match my expectations.
No wireless, less space than a Nomad. Lame.
Photato: Personally I have no issue with the G4 being plastic which is actually better for radio propagation (Wifi BT and Cellullar) and I use a TPU case anyways regardless of Smartphone body material.The leather would be nice to have if the G4 can withstand drops without additional protection. The curved shape seems to help on that. I always wanted to have a Phone that can be used safely with no case for compactness and I think that is what the G4 leather does.
The buttons on the back means you can grab the G4 with no worries of accidentally hit the sides buttons because there is none. It also helps to reduce the bezel.
The negative side of the back buttons is that you have to be careful of no touching the camera lens.
Yeah, as shiny as aluminum cases are, the last iPhone I owned looked like it had been through a war, even though I kept it in a case. Inevitably a bit of grit would get in the case and scratch up the finish. I've had a G3 for a year now and I'm pretty happy with the durability. I do wish they had offered the bumper back in the US, as the only real damage from multiple drops is a bit of silver piping on the corner is scraped and one of the back catches is deformed. For $15 I can have a brand-new-perfect back, but the silver band isn't replaceable and the bumper back would be sweet.I have no desire to make my phone larger than it needs to be, so the only protection I use is a screen protector. FWIW, I almost never use the buttons. The double-tap feature to turn the phone on and off works well, and half the time I use the volume rocker it's not adjusting the particular volume I need (ringer vs audio vs ...)
I'm still trying to figure out how the supposed idea of a cube is both novel and non-obvious to a practitioner of the art.
ShatteredSky: Is it okay if I look at that skyline? You don't want attention, don't go public...
You can look at it all you want, but if you intend to remember it later there will be a nominal fee for each time it is recalled. Or, you can buy a perpetual memory license up front. Note that if you share that memory with a friend, they will also need to purchase a license if intend to reminisce together. Also, you'll need to buy an additional license if you would like to talk about it with other people. Bulk licensing for sharing your memories with larger audiences (such as posting your status on Facebook) may be purchased as well.;-)
Zenza R: Only limitation of this camera is the little control over DOF... For now, there is nothing to do about it :/
Why not provide a continuously variable curved sensor which changes shape with the focal length? Then you can have both. (not that such a beast exists on this [small] scale, yet)
JordanAT: Hassleblad's two core strengths, mechanical reliability and optics, are likely gone. Mechanical reliability on the level of the film cameras from 40 years ago are lost on the modern camera. By combining the film and body into one unit, you have created a disposable camera. Whether the life is 1 year of 5 years is irrelevant when compared to a product which previously could be expected to have a 20 year (or longer) useful life in a pro shop. If you have to change your body to upgrade your "film," the utility of old hardware diminishes much more rapidly.
As for optics, even if there are any optical engineers left at H it means they're probably woefully behind in creating the massively complex aspherical element design which modern sensors demand for sharp images. Poorly focused "art lenses" will always have their place, but to go forward with world-leading designs will require rebuilding the entire lens line from scratch. And I'm not sure there's enough alligator skin in HK to do that.
@Conrad567 - then they're not really a core competency of Hassy any more and they would have to ramp up from scratch, as I indicated.
As for sharpness, I would require a MF lens to be every bit as sharp as a FF lens.
As for a lens being less sharp - that's ridiculous. I expect a MF to have 4x the number of pixels (24x36 vs 60x60 area), which would mean needing to be just as sharp as the sharpest FF. If you make a MF camera produce images no sharper than a FF for the same finished photo size, then all you really have is (uselessly*) shallow DOF as an advantage over FF, but still carry the cost and weight penalties.
*I say useless as there have been exceedingly few times when I've thought when shooting FF, "boy, I wish I could go faster than f/1.4 - there's just too much that's in focus."