Progress is a wonderful thing: now your friends and anyone who finds your lost camera can post p*rn on your Facebook page without your knowledge. But wait, there's more: you might be branded as a paedophile for the rest of your life because someone put kiddie p*orn on your Facebook page.
Memo to camera companies: it's worth hiring photographers to do conceptual designs.
I like it a lot, but I would move the viewfinder to the far left and replace the strap mounts with the D-type (a cloth-to-metal connection is silent, and there's less to fail). I would also remove the brand and model number from the front, while putting the text on the front controls upside down.
I'm not criticising, rather I'm thinking of ways to improve a great idea.
Scott Everett: We are going to continue covering what is happening at the center of photography, regardless of whether a subset of our users doesn't necessarily like it. That doesn't mean we dont care about our users, it just means we are realistic. If we pandered to every single outcropping of product love or hate, we'd probably not cover Canon or Nikon for years at a time, depending on how loudly the masses are yelling.
We strive to provide the most informative and objective information that we can. We have editorial meetings daily to this end. It's hard to get that as a reader coming to the site with understandably strong opinions about a range of topics. But trust that our goals remain unchanged. We are photographers through and through, and so do not feel alone in your disdain of various trends in the world of photography, as many of these same arguments happen with us over lunch, or a beer.
My phone has a 2MP camera that's only useful as a visual notebook, and if you reviewed that type of camera phone it would seem pointless. However, I do think it's great that you're open minded enough to cover devices such as the iPhone and Nokia 808 that potentially have value to photographers.
One item of practical value that you could add to this review is the iPhone's unusual program line.
Mandeno Moments: 1) This type of contract is certainly objectionable, but I would like to offer another perspective: when a band hires a venue it gains a limited set of property rights for the duration of the hire, which includes the right to control who enters the venue and what they may do therein. Thus bands are entitled to restrict photography, despite that fact that it's silly to do so (why stop publicity?).
2) If a government imposed these conditions on photographers via a law that would be a gross violation of property rights and unjust. However, because photographers *freely choose* to enter this contractual relationship there is no issue of injustice here (in the sense of a violation of civil liberties).
There is a third, sensible, option, which is unrestricted photography. This brings publicity when the photos are posted on the web and shared with friends.
The only restriction I would support applies to use of the photos in advertising, due to the matter of implied endorsement (common decency would preclude this use).
I agree that the contracts are disrespectful, and I would say that bands offering such contracts are displaying extreme arrogance. As you point out, they are demanding possession of what other people have created, which is a double standard.
Maloy says "I will go one step further to say that your call for boycott very closely neighbors free market violation and conspiracy to limit competition. Both of those are VERY ugly things." I disagree because - as I said above - a boycott is a pure and just expression of the free market, where fiscal consequences control behaviour (e.g. rude shopkeepers lose customers, and rude bands lose publicity).
continued from my comment below...
Just as Barney refused to sign a contract and walked away, so can other photographers do with the Stone Roses, who may well find that no one is willing to give them free photos and that they will have to pay a lot of money to hire photographers. The free market will punish the Stone Roses for their greed.
3) There is a deeper, more disturbing issue here, which is the spreading belief that people own and have the right to control all images of themselves. These people demand their "rights", and if this is taken to its logical end and photography of strangers in public places is outlawed then those people will have gained their "rights" by violating the property rights of all camera owners (i.e. those owners will have lost their freedom to do what they will with their property, provided that doing so does not violate the personal and property rights of other people. I believe that photographing people in public does not amount to such violations).
1) This type of contract is certainly objectionable, but I would like to offer another perspective: when a band hires a venue it gains a limited set of property rights for the duration of the hire, which includes the right to control who enters the venue and what they may do therein. Thus bands are entitled to restrict photography, despite that fact that it's silly to do so (why stop publicity?).
Memo to Olympus: black versions of your lenses will please people who own black camera bodies and desire to have their equipment as inconspicuous as possible.
1) JPEG quality is 95.2) Haloing is minimal.3) The neutral density filter will help with avoiding diffraction.
DP Review says that the digital zoom is 28-78 equivalent. The Nokia video shows 24-74.
This is the future of consumer photography, because many people want to take a photo then share it quickly and easily. Some serious photographers like the iPhone 4s as a carry-everywhere, and the Nokia appears to be far better. At full screen the Nokia photos look much more natural (less synthetic) than those from the iPhone 4s.
For me the problem with camera phones is useability, and I find it very hard to imagine a phone that has a user interface as pleasant as that of a Canon S95 (the S95 is an excellent carry-everywhere, so this is a reasonable comparison).
It's good that Nokia is thinking outside the box and the sensor size is stunning, but what about the dynamic range of a 1.4 micron pixel? If they kept the sensor size and put 10 megapixels on it the pixel size would be ~5.6 microns, which is the same size as those found in the Nikon D300s and Fuji X100. This would give a much greater dynamic range, albeit the price would be the loss of the digital zoom. Digital zoom with noise is little gain for me.
I speak as a photographer. Happy-snappers will probably love Nokia's approach if it's simple to operate.
The Nokia post shows a bare lens, and all the technology in the world is useless if the lens is covered in fingerprints and scratches. If I'm buying a high end photography-focused phone I want a sliding lens cover, with the option of cover-opening switching the phone to camera mode.