Maverick_: Very disappointed! Perfect reason why no one uses the MF4 for stills professionally. The images are just a couple of notches above my cell phone pics.
Top MF3 cameras will only be used professionally for video use. And hence the top grade video features on this camera.
BTW, I use a Pana GH and totally dislike its image quality, but it's great for video.
Blah, obviously that last comment should've been under another commenter's posts (one of Kim's), whatever
Any one single shot wouldn't demonstrate AF performance overall anyway, no? Unless they posted a whole sequence. S-AF is already understood and well regarded...
There's a guy on the MU-43 boards doing some interesting tests of the C-AF/DFD and tracking tho, he's compared it with the E-M1 I think and commented on performance using Olympus as well as Panasonic lenses (IIRC the f2.8 tele was the most impressive, some Oly primes did ok, the PL25 did unusually poor).
Hopefully DPR tests it reasonably well as they did for the X-T1, etc. DFD seems kinda mysterious and the GH4 seems to be doing well (or better than past models) with lenses that shouldn't even be DFD compatible.
I can't wait until these advancements start trickling down from the top tier models...
DPR denizens really need to learn not to feed the trolls, just leads to more trolling.
mosc: What is the slope of the effective crop curve on the equivalent aperture? f2.8 on a 5mp sensor 1/4 the size (1/2.3"?) would give an equivalent aperture of f16 at 140mm behind the RX100III's lens at 70mm if I did my math right.
That would mean the RX100III's lens with a 2x digital zoom (140mm equiv) would still gather more light than the S-120 does at 50mm. The criticisms of the RX100III's range relative to the S-120 seem flat out ignorant.
This camera with a 3x digital zoom is still probably comparable to your typical 1/2.3" superzoom at 200mm, in a much smaller package. Indeed failing an RX10 sized piece of glass, the only cameras the truly beat the RX100III on the tele end are pocket superzooms with reach past 200mm.
The LF1 uses a 1/1.7" sensor and goes to 200mm equivalent in a smaller* package, FWIW... (7x to the S120's 5x, plus an EVF to boot) Apples and oranges tho. The older RX models are really staring to pressure the rest of the advanced compact market, even though they still have no direct competitor.
utomo99: Canon need to work really hard to deliver new S series model. If they did not give something really great (with price lower than 500), they will not sell many cameras.
Apples and oranges, the S series is even smaller and more pocket friendly, way smaller sensor, and new models are usually overpriced at $400+ but older ones are a solid value for what they are and what they cost.
What we really need is an actual competitor with a 1" sensor, THAT would put pressure on Sony price wise.
utomo99: Sony need to add smart zoom by reducing the Mega pixel (cropping it). Example 120mm on 6Mp. I think it is good for many people. Release this function on next firmware release
It's no different than cropping, manufacturers try to advertise it as something else but that's what it boils down to.
Peiasdf: No off-screen buttons, no unibody construction, no integrated big battery, no front facing stereo speakers, no 64/128GB internal storage and no weatherseal. It is like LG isn't even trying.
SONY Z2 is good only if it has off-screen buttons and iOS.
On screen buttons are the way to go IMO, better use of the available space, specially now that there's more options for apps and sites going full screen and hiding the buttons.
For me personally, even HTC's dual speakers are a big waste of space. Yeah they're the best smartphone speakers, but don't kid yourself, 3-4" of separation isn't REALLY gonna create true stereo imaging. You're just getting some hard panning... They can't exactly go back to one after hyping the concept so much, but one good front firing speaker would work just as well.
G3 battery is as large as any other flagship btw, not sure I understand that complaint. It'll be interesting to see if someone goes with a sealed battery larger than 3000mAh now that most have gone back to replaceable batteries. It's getting harder and harder for smartphone OEMs to differentiate.
I kinda agree that periphery features like weather sealing, Moto's always listening feature, wireless charging, etc are now just as key as the highlight specs.
Menneisyys: Another no-go. My Nokia 808 won't be beaten in IQ for another year for sure.
Unless Samsung or Sony comes out with a large-sensor, thick cameraphone with a prime, wideangle, bright lens. Samsung have released three small-sensor zoom/"Kamera" models (pretty good ones for a zoom camera but, at the same FoV, can't rival IQ-wise the large-sensor prime-lens 808); hopefully they also release a large-sensor fixed-FoV lens one as well.
Wow, you really think there are a million 808 users out there? Like actively using it as their daily driver? Seems far fetched, but even if there are, that's a very niche market. Samsung probably sells a million SGS5 just during launch week, pretty sure I remember seeing something about the SGS4 selling a million in under two weeks anyway.
Point is, few OEM (not even HTC) would build a phone hoping for a million sales at most. Frankly I don't see why you'd suffer thru the 808 just for the camera, I'd much rather just carry two devices but that's just me. Is Nokia's current Lumia THAT far behind the 808 that you'd give up the app ecosystem and everything else on a modern phone just for the better camera?
I think the modular approach is reasonable for people that want a truly great camera on their phone (rather than two devices), somebody just needs to chase the concept further. Phones aren't gonna go back to 12-15 mm form factors anytime soon.
BradJudy: I think the issue that you've demonstrated with Ufocus is because the depth measurement is so much lower resolution than the actual photograph, not capturing small objects like the bicycle parts or doing a good job detecting exact edges. Because the Google app uses motion/parallax with the main camera sensor to identify depth, it's at the same resolution as the image and can (in theory) do a better job in these aspects.
In practice both produce poor results by overdoing the effect, introducing artifacts, errors in edge stitching etc. I wasn't very impressed with it on my N5 anyway, haven't tried it again since initial testing. LG's more subtle effect seemed to work better during a comparison I saw but it wasn't very comprehensive.
ProfHankD: Having a separate depth sensor means there are alignment issues, which are not helped by lower resolution. It would be interesting to see if the depth sensor could be used to stitch actual 3D models more accurately, but the simulated DoF effect looks too crude to be of much use -- at least for now. Obviously, shallow DoF "like professional cameras give" is what every tiny camera wants to fake this year....
They already released a phone with dual cameras for 3D, and a 3D display, and it actually worked... But nobody really cares about recording 3D content or watching it on such a small screen, at least that concept flopped quicker.
joe6pack: If there is one thing that HTC has helped the photography community, it is that HTC debunked the myth of using less pixels but keeping sensor size unchanged results in better picture.
I have to admit that I was a believer. I have converted after seeing HTC One's samples.
They didn't really debunk anything, it's always been a balance, go too far in either direction without increasing efficiency (too many pixels for the sensor size OR too few) and you end up with something that suffers by comparison, not a shocker.
peterpainter: Why this one? Are you going to test the other pocketable 30X(or whatever) zooms? Recent magazine (Chasseur d'Image) has Canon SX700HS, Nikon S9700, Panasonic TZ60 and Sony DSC-HX60V. Gives the nod to the Canon as (least bad) but as usual there are pros and cons so a comparison is worth reading as ones' priorities may be different. Also, someone else mentioned a Casio......Incidentally, for us unbelievers, the review did mention that the stabilisation made these extreme zooms usable in good light (speeds of 1/30th with non-shaky hands!)
The LF1 lens wasn't reviewed very well either, tho I guess it's all about context. Looked poor next to an LX7, looked better next to a ZS but I dunno how much of that was down to the lens or the larger/lower MP sensor.
I like my LF1 and still use it despite preferring my M4/3 in most cases. Sometimes even a camera on a strap is too much bulk and I need something pocketable (but cheaper than an RX100, if only Sony had some competition there).
The LF1's range is still uniquely useful compared to other larger sensor compacts, I got some great DMB concert shots with it last summer (even used the EVF for stability's sake).
I don't see Samsung releasing a fixed FL anything outside of phones, zooms appeal to the masses and Samsung's all about mass appeal. I'd really like to see Sony take the QX concept to it's logical evolution and release a couple of prime editions, or at least one at 35mm with the 1" sensor...
It would HAVE to be significantly smaller than the two existing models, maybe even as small as something as a Panasonic 20/1.7... That'd be eminently pocketable and a MUCH better alternative than a smaller sensor P&S or phone. It makes sooo much sense, just gotta market it right. It's not like the concept of selling zoom to smartphone users really caught fire (existing QX).
Robemo: Never understood these 'camera-phone' reviews. I don't know anyone who is serious about photography that uses a phone. I do know a lot of people using their phone for taking 'social events' pictures and then sending them to friends. They don't give a hoot about 'ultimate' quality images. It's about sharing a very basic image. Most of the time the images stay in the phone until memory runs out (and then they come to me ...'Help, my camera is not working anymore !'). If they ever print such an image, which they seldom do, it will be postcard size. The images in this review of the M8 look good enough for that for sure. Make these reviews more realistic by aiming at how almost everyone uses their phone and not by reviewing it for the rare geek that uses their camera phone like a Hasselblad.
So they shouldn't compare IQ at all? Even if the majority of users will not do anything with the shots but post them to FB that doesn't mean they don't give a hoot about IQ... You do realize displays are getting better and better all the time on tablets, laptops and even TVs no? 1080p (2MP) is like the minimum people will accept across those devices now and they WILL pinch and zoom and often look at pictures in more detail than any "serious photographer" would while printing.
Frankly I don't much care about the camera on my phone because I won't use it for anything critical or memorable, I have other cameras, but for PLENTY of people now their phone is their SOLE camera and it'll be called to capture everything from first born sons to weddings. Your snobbish attitude is wholly unnecessary, if you don't care for a technical review of a smartphone camera and just want a subjective by the seat of your pants comment then read any of the dozens of tech blogs.
Photog74: I wonder what the point of a 534ppi display is. Most people's eyes cannot resolve more than 300. And even the eagle-eyed cannot distinguish more than around 400 dots/pixels per inch, really.
It's not really to show more content, most UI elements are scaled so they're the same size. Yeah you could zoom out of a desktop formatted web site and get more legible text with less aliasing, but they're mostly doing it for the DPI race and it's bordering on silly... Won't say it's pointless because at 5.5" I would expect a higher res display than at 4.3-4.6", it was just bound to happen.
Lee Jay: I pretty much hate marketing people.
Those dimwits redefined quad HD nonsensically. QHD is four HD screens arrayed in a 2x2 fashion, which is 3840x2160. But no, that's 4k when actual 4k has 4096 horizontal pixels, and QHD is now 2560x1600.
The did the same with phones. 4G LTE is actually 3G LTE, they just renamed it to make it sound cooler, even though it meets none of the 4G specs.
It's 5.5" tho, not that I think it makes a difference vs 1080p, but if you go from something like 1080p at 4.6" vs 1080p at 6" you'll notice it so it's not all pointless IMO. I do see less and less incentive to upgrade my smartphone lately tho, probably won't bother at all this year despite my rapid upgrade cycle thru the last 3... I had three EVOs and now a Nexus 5 but they all represented a much bigger leap (single core to dual and GB, qHD to 720p and much thinner profile and ICS, etc).
tkbslc: Laser AF sounds cool, but at the same time the DOF margin on a phone gives a pretty wide berth for AF accuracy. Not sure it's going to revolutionize anything.
I think it's more about speeding it up than making it more accurate...
Jan Privat: Just spray some Ultra-Ever Dry (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPM8OR6W6WE) on your lens, and spend the money on alcohol & girls.
That should've read hazy residue, not heavy, darn autocorrect.
I know (hope?) you were kidding, but that stuff actually leaves a heavy residue or film on the surface of whatever you spray it on, it also wears off after a while... Two things they fail to mention in this and other various promo videos I've seen, it's still pretty nice for certain household items and outdoor stuff tho, possibly decent for certain electronics, glass not so much.
munro harrap: Yes, it is near-sighted greed pure and simple to force you to pay more for more ram according to HDD size, but that is why they make them. Apple not only do the same but are worse, and almost the biggest general offence against the consumer is that if they are kind enough to "give" you an HDMI slot they use the excuse that the motherboard has not got the ability, to limit your HDMI output into anything to a max of 1920x1080, so I'd check this very carefully before buying anything size your high resolution TV, or your 2560x1600 photo monitor that very likely has no displayport socket anyway , wont be able to work at full resolution. They'll add (and all are now so doing still) hundreds of pounds to the cost just for a plug!!
The Displayport socket may very well also be limitedto the same poor performance.
The last time I went looking no laptops at under £1100 list had an HDMI port that supported 2560x1600 output Only Apple .
It's not the "socket" that's the limiting factor, it's the GPU or video card user. A consumer should of course be informed about said limitations tho, I never said otherwise, I'm just saying you're blatantly misunderstand where the limitation and blame lies.