HowaboutRAW: I wonder if Samsung included a decent sound card the way HP did with those Beats Android tablets by HP?
I wonder how easily I can pop the case open to replace the battery and flash harddrive? (That's something Lenovo did well with those Yoga Android tablets--not great screens and awful sound though.)
Samsung used to have some pretty decent Wolfson DACs on their phones early on, but they were still using their own SoC back then... They moved away from that at one point, no clue if the same parts mate with the Qualcomm SoC everyone are using these days or what they're using on the tablets though. I haven't found anyone doing even an inkling of decent sound quality evaluation for these kinda products...
Anandtech has been doing some interesting tests, though limited to a handful of phones. Just having X DAC or whatever isn't any kind of guarantee either , particularly if using headphones which will also rely on proper output stages and amplification. I'd dare say that part and the headphones themselves actually matter a whole lot more than the DAC...
Which is why half the time I just sidestep the whole chain and opt for Bluetooth output to a BT receiver that is a known quantity to me (decent DAC / amp), obviously Bluetooth represents it's own set of compromises, but many of these devices these days use a decent enough encoding profile that the compression isn't anywhere near as bad as BT on much older devices.
In a mobile setting the ambient noise or your own headphones are probably the weaker link anyway, unless you're using $600+ custom IEM (as most hifi full size headphones in the range would need better amping to reach anywhere near their potential), and in a non mobile setting I'd rather bypass it all with a Chromecast, Sonos, etc. A decent mobile DAC isn't hard to spec into a product tho, it's just an easy corner to cut or ignore.
Something like a $30 SanDisk Clip Zip could already get you one of the cleanest outputs out there (and it came out years ago)... Obviously it's of no help if the content is on a laptop / tablet but the point is good / clean audio can be had very cheap. Of course when you're trying to race to the bottom with a fully integrated laptop / tablet design, that's another story.
Your tablet, laptop, and a "real" (external?) DAC are all still DACs (or have a DAC)... Not trying to be anal here, it's just that I don't think anyone calls it a sound card outside of the desktop market where we had actual sound cards... Which is just a DAC on a PCI card really (duh), possibly with a headphone amp if you bought a decent one in the last ten years (which still blow away motherboard on-board DAC, but most people could care less in the same way they could care less about dedicated cameras these days). Again, not trying to be pedantic, probably not telling you anything you didn't know either... Just trying to get at some clearer terminology.
If it's just using a decent Wolfson DAC or something similar then it doesn't really have anything to do with Beats, point is they don't make any of it so it's just branding over the top of someone else's engineering. I doubt they even play a major role in evaluating it tbh, the voicing of most Beats headphones is utter crap... Not just bad for their price level, just bad.
ThePhilips: "they forgot to include a battery in the box."
So, dear netizens, what's the abbreviation/emoticons for "unbelievable", like for example "banging head against the keyboard unbelievable"??
Beats is the antithesis of good audio, and usually little more than a software EQ...
pictureAngst: Some useful reminders - particularly the one about keeping your gear in a sealed bag when moving between different temperatures and/or humidities, I always remember that one just after my lens has completely fogged up.
The whole lens caps thing will be lost on the 90% of owners who buy an SLR with a single megazoom lens.
BTW when using a lens cleaning solution, does anyone else get residual 'rainbow' smearing that then itself needs to be cleaned off?
It always seemed like lens cleaning solutions always made my eyeglasses harder to clean (these days I just use dish washing soap once in a while), so I haven't even tried any for lenses. Dust blower and micro fiber cloth are all I've used so far, might reach for a drop of alcohol on the cloth if I get something smeared particularly bad on a lens... Obsessive cleaning probably does more harm than good anyway.
Valentinian: Now as panasonic is about to release also the LX8, with 1" sensor and lens 24-90(equivalent)/F2-2.8, it would have been nice if this superzoom lens were 90-400 instead of overlapping with the LX8. (but that's just my opinion)
Nobody would ever make a fixed lens telephoto camera, much less one with an $800 price tag... Too much of a niche market, some enthusiasts would probably be thrilled with such a setup, just like many enthusiasts carry multiple mirrorless bodies and pros carry multiple full frame bodies... But theyre a minority and this is a consumer model made for a larger majority (even if its a small subset willing to pay for it). Im just glad Sony has SOME competition now, well see what happens with the LX8. Not in the market for either one but competition benefits everyone...
TheProv: Please, add to the comparison an aps-c or a u4/3 with 18-200/14-140 lens!
It seems most of the mirrorless alternatives would probably fall behind at continuous tracking unless youre comparing it with a GH4/EM1/A6000 (2 of them, cost significantly more), that will get addressed in time as DFD and on sensor PDAF migrates down to cheaper M4/3 bodies.
Lens wise, from looking at their equivalency graph, a 14-140 (less wide and 100mm shorter) would perform similarly... Maybe a little brighter at the wide end and slower at the long end. But a G5/G6 for $350-550 plus a 14-140 is more expensive, how much more depends on what kinda deal you catch and what body plus version of the lens you go for (as much as 50% more expensive or as little as $0).
Size might be the most interesting comparison, I know a G6 plus the new 14-140 isnt any larger than an small DSLR plus standard kit zoom, so they are probably not far off. Edit: Dang, camerasize.com doesnt have the RX10 (much less this), nor the new more compact 14-140, the G6 probably ends up larger though.
spitfire31: No headphone output and apparently (not mentioned, anyway) no manual audio (which would be pointless without monitoring, anyway).
At least Sony were smart enough to include these BASIC features on their RX-10.
I would expect the FZ1000 price to drop in under 6 months too, because well, its probably gonna go unnoticed by a lot of people and anything Panasonic seems to see sharp price drops mere months after release regardless of how its received critically... Im not complaining, Ive bought three Panasonic cameras in the last year (one at MSRP, one at close to it, one with a decent discount), their US distribution/pricing/etc is just wonky.
W5JCK: Bridge cameras like this one and the RX10 or still what I consider to be sub-enthusiast level. The 1" sensor is too small to deliver quality IQ at any low light level. That f/2.8 lens on a 1" sensor is equivalent to a f/5.0 lens on an APC-S camera. Pretty darn slow for wide open, and thus rather lacking in low light capability. A f/4.0 lens on a 1" sensor is equivalent to a f/7.1 lens on an APC-S camera. So this camera basically has a f/4--f/7.1 zoom lens compared to APS-C DSLRs and mirrorless cameras. Meh! For the price of the RX10 you would be better off with a a6000 and a few good lenses. This one is cheaper, but still not worth the price for anyone who wants an enthusiasts level and above IQ. This is a mom/dad camera used to take little pictures to post on the internet. Again, meh!
There is still some relative merit to the equivalency once you factor total light gathered by the sensor tho... I wouldnt put the camera down because of that, because its still a quantum leap over most any other bridge camera outside of the RX10 tho. It may not match an ILC with a brighter lens indoors, but itll definitely blow away many smaller sensor compacts even in daylight. Much more room to crop etc... If DFD has brought the AF up to snuff I could see a lot of people shooting action preferring this over many ILC. Theres room for it in the market, specially if priced aggresively in light of its only competitor.
The fact that they implemented DFD on this camera is pretty interesting, I hope the AF system and CAF is thoroughly tested to see how much of a difference it makes vs previous bridge cameras or even something like the RX10... Panasonic execs/engineers had said just a week ago they would be implementing DFD across lots of other cameras, even compacts, and sure enough they have.
JustDavid: is this still a review update or a part of direct advertising? 4 articles and one huge banner for one camera on front page in one day? this will surely break the record of Sony RX100 III :)
Your opinion is that the articles are superfluous, yet you still wasted the time to click thru and comment, thus negating your opinion. You basically achieved exactly what DPR wanted, they grabbed your attention and sold a few more page ads. While I agree that the 4th article seems a bit extraneous I dont really see the point in complaining. Im not interested in this camera but I still find the content worth reading, and if I didnt itd just be an extra click of the scroll wheel to look past it.
Karroly: I do not understand why DPR reviewer is bothered by the vertical black bars on the rear LCD when shooting 3:2 stills. Obviouly, given the body size/layout, Sony designers could not make the screen taller with a 3:2 ratio. So why not use the available space on the left and right sides to display a larger picture in 16:9 movie mode ?
@Karroly, I actually view most of my pictures on 16:10 displays (tablet, PC, etc), sometimes 16:9 (TV), but I'm not always watching it across the length of the display... The tablet is sometimes in portrait mode, the desktop has 3x 1920x1200 displays which are sometimes in PPP mode (so 3600x1920), etc etc. I'm an Android user 100% but Apple still owns a large portion of the tablet market and their tablets are definitely not 16:9...
Regardless of viewing habits, the sensors aren't 16:9, so if mainly shoot stills then a 16:9 display is absolutelya wasteful design unless you're shooting in 16:9 crop mode (in which case you're just wasting a chunk of the sensor's pixels all in the name of not seeing black bars). It's really not about the black bars, it's about the valuable surface space on a small camera body.
hydrospanner: Sounds like Zuck is losing Instagrammers to VSCO Cam...
Heh, I almost forget FB bought them... I doubt it matters, they've got such a strong brand recognition by now... I've never used it btw, and it's obviously overused at this point, but this is still welcome. Maybe people will be more subtle with the filters now... Naaah.
tomatoketchup: Excellent... more tyros holding their gigantic pads out at arms length will now be able to swing their monstrosities from left to right, looking even more like complete tools.
I just don't understand how you leave home with a 10" tablet but not your (far smaller/cheaper) phone... I think it's safe to assume the vast majority of people with tablets also have smartphones, I'm sure there's exceptions but they don't account for the number of dimwits we see using iPads as their camera. Grandpa using a tablet to take pic might be ok, some soccer mom or young dude just looks bad.
Brev00: It seems to me that all the cameras referred to in this review scored 80 points. If they are scored relative to one another, that would seem to indicate that they are all mediocre. I can see the score if it were relative to a more advanced body. But, if scored against other similar bodies, the scoring seems harsh to me. Is 80 the new 100?
The scoring system is just pointless and weighed counter intuitively, very nice review tho, just ignore the scoring. I can see the usefulness of a scoring system for individual aspects like IQ etc, but the overall score just incites infinitely more noise than aid (no pun intended). They should just stick to the awards IMO, have three award tiers, bronze for anything competitive and without major flaws, silver for stuff that innovates somehow, and gold for best in class. After that it's up to the reader to decide whether they value lens choices more than video or video more than ergonomics etc. Not like most of the ILC cameras they review aren't all solid choices.
sdh: To those who are making a fuss over the level gauge: WHY?
Activate the grid, pay attention to horizontal or vertical elements in the composition and visually align them to the grid.
In my experience a physically level camera yields an image that looks tilted, more often than not.
Sometimes you want to represent the true decline in the environment and a level would be more useful than the grid in those cases... Personally I agree with having it as a Con, even cheap P&S have level guides sometimes, seems silly to omit it when previous models had it. My own camera lacks one btw (GF6), and it bugs me there too because my pocket cam and a G6 we also have do have the gauge so I'd gotten used to having it.
Why do people take issue with any small con, are they not reading the review as a whole? It was a very positive review, no camera's perfect, they can always benefit from tweak and/or copying competitor features. The pro/con list if there to summarize what it lacks relative to the competition and what it does well, not as an absolute gauge of how pleasant the camera is to use, read the review for that (and ignore the pointless score).
Heck, I even appreciate them pointing out even more insignificant stuff like USB charging in the pro/con list. They list it as both but to me it's totally a positive, I don't care about having to buy a discrete charger separate for faster charging, having the option to charge in camera off a phone car charger or a USB battery pack is huge when traveling. I wish more mirrorless cameras with relatively small batteries featured this.
justmeMN: DPR: "The a6000's kit lens isn't great from an image quality point of view, regularly producing images with very poor corners ..."
That's a significant flaw, that should have prevented it from getting a Gold Award.
Kit lenses get refreshed pretty often too, I don't agree that it should reflect on the score for the body. That'd make it a very fast moving target, Panasonic has had something like 4 kit lenses in nearly as many years (with significant changes, sometimes for the worse but recently for the better) without even counting other types of zooms that get kitted besides the normal zoom.
The A6k was sold with ands without it from the start, and it remains a valuable choice if you crave portability and/or just want a tiny zoom to throw in the bag as a backup amongst a few primes. Those collapsible kit zooms add a lot of appeal to any mirrorless system even if it rankles the enthusiasts and experts.
Rod McD: Why is not having a touch screen a "con"? It's just a statement of fact. It seems that the position being adopted is that all cameras SHOULD have a touch screen. Sure some people like them. There are others who don't. I personally don't want a camera that does have one and this would put the A6000 higher on my list.
"The only good thing about it is it makes screens bigger. "
I'm guessing you were alluding to phones there, I'd dare say it applies here too. They're using screens with a wider aspect ratio than sensor, it only makes sense that it should be a touchscreen that offers additional programmable soft buttons on the wasted space... Otherwise they might as well have gone with a smaller screen and additional hard control points.
This in addition to the big advantage in placing an AF point accurately (particularly when using CDAF). It's a valid negative IMO, one of the few this camera really has, but no camera's perfect.
They could alter the body design? There's lots of other mirrorless bodies with more square screens you know... It's a valid point in the Con list IMO, up to the user to decide whether it bugs him. I think it's less about black bars per se than just getting a smaller usable screen than what the specs say (for stills anyway). Many would probably prefer more control points if a chunk of the screen is often being wasted, for instance, or even a touchscreen that makes better use of that space with programmable soft buttons.