I take back my last comment. I sized an image to 640x640, copied it to my iPhone, and then sent it on to Instagram, and it's displaying as a 640 x 640 image on Instagram.
I wish Instagram had just explained that in their release announcement. Maybe they think the vast majority of their users are too stupid to care about that nerdy stuff.
As far as I can tell, same 612 x 612 resolution photos, but now they are being upsized to 640 pixels, resulting in blurry unsharp photos.
What am I missing?
The Mavica may seem stupid today, but remember that computers from the 1990s didn't have USB ports, and prior to Windows XP in 2001, even if your computer did have a USB port, it didn't work unless you installed drivers for it, which probably required you to type in cryptic DOS commands.
So recording to floppy disk was a creative solution from Sony.
The cheapest entry-level DSLR is going to be a lot more practical than the most expensive "professional" film DSLR with this insert.
So the author of this article is using a very expensive RX1 to take mediocre photos. I haven't learned much.
Just what the world needed, another filter that adds fake film grain and vignetting.
What about an iPod touch?
Ivan Lietaert: So glad dpreview is reminding us on a weekly basis that one can only make artistic photos with an iPhone! plug plug plug
Well other smartphones suck compared to Apple; people who own ugly Samsung Galaxies feel very little inspiration to use it as a poor-quality camera.
Wayne Pilling: Why the need for such speed? What's wrong with taking a 'better quality' image on a camera that shoots raw, then processing it in say, LR? You then email it to the patiently waiting world from your work station! Too much to ask?
He should get a Canon 6D. It has a wireless function so it automatically sends photos to the mobile phone. That way, he can instantly upload 6D-quality photos to Instagram, and have a 6D-quality raw file for future editing.
People are violating the spirit of Instagram by using borders to make the photos rectangular.
Bruce McL wrote: "On a phone you can edit and publish as you are photographing. No other equipment is required. That ability is what makes using a phone different from using traditional cameras."
So people want to be acknowledged as Fine Art Photographers, but they are too lazy to copy the photos from the camera to a computer. OK.
These iphone articles don't make any sense. Yeah, it has a good camera for a phone, but at $650 it isn't cheap. My LX7 is so much better a camera for half the price, and you can even buy extra batteries for it.
sigala1: Why did the guy have to drop from a full-frame DSLR to a smartphone?
Surely there are many in-between cameras that are small and non-intimidating yet offer much better image quality than a smartphone. My Panasonic LX7, for example, blows away my iPhone, but you can easily hold it one handed.
It's easier to use one device sure. But for an extra 60 seconds of work to take the SD card out of a real camera and plut into an iPhone so you can upload the JPEGs to Instagram, you can also have high-quality RAW files to use for other purposes later.
Why not use small but high-quality camera like a Sony RX1?
Apple sells an adapter that lets you take the SD card out of a camera and plug it into an iOS device and then it automatically imports JPEG files.
Why did the guy have to drop from a full-frame DSLR to a smartphone?
BingoCharlie: So glad we got this review. Forget the NEX-6, GH3, XE-1, and 6D. A review of the Coolpix S800c is what DPR users have been clamoring for.
This review doesn't answer any of the important questions.
How well does the Netflix streaming app work?
How much batter life for listening to MP3s?
Does it even make phone calls?
pugilist: what are "complimentary colors"?
Colors that tell you how good a job you're doing. "Wow, great photo!"
RedDog Steve: JUST SAY NO ! to lossy formats.Adobe will ruin the future of .dng.The whole idea was to have a 'future-proof' open archival format.Compression is OK, but lossy compression is not.
"Adobe will ruin the future of .dng."
Adobe is offering this as an OPTION and not something you have to do. Adobe is making DNG better by making it more versatile.
G Davidson: Sounds very good. Major reasons to use Raw for me are white balance corrections, adding my own choice of sharpening and, of course, more flexibility with exposure. In all these cases, a lossy Raw would be a lot more useful than a jpeg and these days Raw files are just getting too big to store, growing at a much faster rate than hard drive sizes.
I think all manufacturers should include a 'save to DNG' option, as the format will definitely be more survivable than their jumble of proprietary ones. Or it's part, if Adobe is going to have newer versions that are incompatible with their older software, there should be free tools to 'convert' them to be usable. It's not much of an open format if there aren't free tools avaliable to access it.
"adding my own choice of sharpening"
Yes, one of my biggest annoyances at out-of-camera JPEGs is that they have sharpening which can't be turned off (even when dialed down) and introduces sharpening halos which you are stuck with.
Brek01: Speaking for myself, I am happy with CS3, it does all I need it to do, so I am not upgrading to any new version anytime soon, which means no revenue for adobe, so I guess I see why they are doing it.
I already had CS3, so it was around the same price to upgrade to CS5 than to buy Lightroom. And I tried the demo of Lightroom, it's just a different interface around ACR, and I'm not a professional photographer so I had no use for the fancy database. Bridge works fine for my purposes.
But yes, a cheaper way around the ACR problelm is to buy and update Lightroom; the Lightroom updates are half the price of the Photoshop udpates.