matt_nnn: Why does it get the 720p screen.If you are into taking pictures you probably want a hifg res screen to view those...
What resolution is your camera's 3" screen? ;) In all seriousness, probably all about cost/power... Personally, in switching from a 720p phone to a 1080p I wasn't blown away by the difference... Secondary aspects about the newer display probably made more of a difference (HTC EVO LTE vs Nexus 5 btw), the newer one has more accurate colors etc.
Jogger: I wonder why dont they use the fold-optics like what was found in the Sony T series before.. those compacts were roughly the same thickness of today's phones. Sure, the sensor would still be tiny.. but, you get zoom and optical IS.
This Samsung doesn't have optical IS? That'd be a big fail on a 10x zoom meant for the general consumer...
Folding optics would be interesting, just looked at the latest Sony T and it's 15mm thick... Even if it doesn't account for protrusions (of which there are few), that's still thinner than this phone whose main lens protrusion puts it at 20mm (even it's thinnest point it's still 16mm, vs the typical <10mm phone, which makes a big difference).
Samsung might not have any experience with that kinda optic tho, or it may take too much internal volume. The whole exercise is kinda pointless anyway, 10x zoom on a phone is a compromise in sensor size/performance as well as phone size/specs... I guess it's easier to market than a larger sensor and better low light pics tho, right?
RichRMA: These things are probably so tightly integrated, they just crush the ones that come back. There goes Samsung's profit margin.
Ehh, the camera module is usually a discrete part, I doubt they'll crush a bunch of phones whole like that... Even if it's already soldered into the same PCB as the SoC and too much hassle to bother replacing, the display and all sorts of other parts are still usable (even if it's in the repair/refurbished/parts chain).
A phone is actually not much more integrated than a modern laptop with a sealed battery and no access door (some even have soldered RAM and/or proprietary storage connectors for SSD)... And Samsung's are some of the few that have external storage and removable batteries so there's that.
I've never owned a Samsung phone and there's little I envy in them btw, outside of having some degree of water sealing on their current flagship... This isn't the first time they have a widespread QC issue either. First Galaxy line ever had a notoriously shoddy GPS and it was never properly addressed, at least they're on top of this.
BaldCol: Thanks for sharing. Very interesting.
Will future generations be finding hard drives in thier attics?
Preserving digital media takes some care, just like preserving these slides, luckily it's not too hard since having redundant copies is fairly easy by comparison. We can still read floppies and hard drives from 20 years ago, quite easily too (there's a working IBM 486 in my house), at worst you need to visit eBay for some spare parts.
Sounds like a Chromebook with 100MB of free internet a month (are those deals still around? Tmo had a similar one too) is a far more ideal solution, wouldn't be hard to recreate the push/software aspect with other apps. These guys should've skipped the hardware phase and focused on a simplified app that people could use with old tablets or Chromebooks, etc.
Wish they'd add a touchscreen! Would solve some of the UI issues. It's so nice for setting up an AF point or even shooting all in one tap...
Boerseuntjie: People said Sony Mobile will never fly after they let Ericsson go.Sad that the two giants of mobile phones Ericsson and Nokia could not survive, it looks like making the same boring phone year after year strategy of Apple and Samsung works good ;) that speaks volumes of how dump North American consumers are, buying the same crap and falling for junk marketing...LOL
Pretty sure Apple and Samsung have had global success... Not that I've ever bought a phone from either, but your xenophobic bias is rather senseless. Didn't Sony just absorb the Ericsson phone division anyway? The other half of Ericsson still works with network equipment tho. Sony's still making nice phones, just haven't gained much traction in the US, hard to compete with the Samsung PR machine.
Sean Nelson: Based on Microsoft's track record in this area, this sounds like the kiss of death. Zune, anyone?
It's been a while since Zune, which had modest success anyway, Kin was a far bigger flop.
Daxs: Nokia was dead long time ago, Without Microsoft Nokia is nothing! Nokia was to slow when smartphones came.
I've always thought WP straddles the line rather well between Android and iOS (I've been using Android for a while myself, and had Windows Mobile and Palm PDAs before that, from Handspring and Toshiba)... It just got to the market a couple years late and hasn't managed to capture public attention despite a decent effort on MS' part, could be worse, could be BB OS or WebOS under HP (that was arguably a far bigger travesty IMO, since Palm was much closer to having a critically successful modern OS).
MS is still committed and still has plenty of cash to throw behind WP, they're the third player by default right now and there's definitely room for one. You can't watch TV in the US for more than 5 min without seeing a WP commercial and hearing Sara Bareille's Brave play at the end of it, again.
AlanG: I think Microsoft has a different long term strategy than the other phone makers. They want to bring user's desktops, laptops, tablets, and phones all under one interface with seamless software support for Office documents, corporate communication and security.
It is much more of a total ecosystem approach and time will tell if this works out for them.
Apple didn't have a cohesive plan to integrate iOS and Mac OS, iTunes is not a strategy, they've slowly gone in that direction with things like iPhoto sync and iMessage... And added a few mostly unwelcome elements to OS X that crib from the iOS UI. WP and Modern was more of a ground up plan, not that I think it's bearing much fruit. I don't have a problem with the modern UI per se, but it's gonna take more work for it to be useful on desktop or even convertibles, unless you're just using the latter as consumption tablets (in which case Android and iOS still have a more convincing offering).
joe6pack: I wonder if it is rooted to start with? $50 for extra 48GB seems reasonable too.
GSM: 850, 900, 1800, 1900MHz WCDMA: Bands: 1/2/4/5/8 LTE: Bands: 1/3/4/7/17/38/40
Band 4 support is right there under the specs, doubt it's rooted out of the box, big security risk and there's no point (they can just ship it like a Nexus, anyone that should be messing with root privileges can have it in under five minutes).
DStudio: Thanks for the mock photo with that disgusting logo on the back!
DPR could at least use the current Windows logo if they're gonna stoop to that, just saying...
Menneisyys: I've very thoroughly tested it on my (factory; no rooting) Nexus 7 2013 and found out the following:
- the new panorama support is GREAT, particularly if you enable maximum resolution (the default is high-res). Up until now, Google's implementation was a joke - far-far inferior to either Apple's one on the iPhone 4S+ or Samsung's implementation in their Android handsets. Even Nokia's WP (but not Symbian) implementation has been significantly better.
- blurring worked just GREAT in my tests. While some people did complain about it being slow(ish), I haven't noticed speed problems on my N7, which, while "only" having a 5 Mpixel sensor, has a, compared to the SD800, significantly slower CPU.
What's wrong? Most importantly, all manual modes have been removed, which is a BIG-BIG minus. There's no
- scene selection- manual WB and ISO setting- timer
The first two is particularly painful as, with the new Camera app, you in no way can force the system to shoot at high shutter speeds.
Why would they, or how even, doesn't the depth map rely on data gathered during the unique photo taking process where you swivel phone over the subject? Without that the blur effect would be worse still.
JordanAT: Wow, that's fast enough - and large enough - to be a SSD drive in a small PC. Pretty soon we're going to need faster USB ports.
Not really, those are merely the max sequential transfer speeds, most decent SSD now hover at the SATA bottleneck when doing sequential read/writes (near 500MB/s, or about 2x), but that's not really what makes a SSD drive great for an OS/programs anyway... It's their speed at random read write operations, which isn't merely 3x or 5x faster that of an old HDD but several orders of magnitude faster.
SD cards are usually not optimized for random operations, and they could never be optimized to the degree than an SSD's controller is since those rely on many more channels (of communication to the NAND) than what's available in removable media. Regardless, USB 3.0 is still more than fast enough where these cards wouldn't be bottlenecked by it.
Impulses: Seems to produce a 2.5MP image (out thereabouts), Lens Blur that is. How does that compare to the HTC/Samsung implementation? I only tested it briefly, in low light no less which produced some clearly visible edge artefacts...
Frankly I'm not all that interested in what changed and got added or removed, as a phone camera it's still serviceable for what I use it, BUT you missed by far biggest improvement... The preview FINALLY displays correct aspect ratio instead of a cropped 16:9 view!
That was my biggest issue with the old UI, nevermind the circular menu, the preview made accurate framing impossible. They also added grid lines FWIW, lots of people still asking for 3:2, 16:9, and even 1:1 output crop modes tho.
Android Central has a really good article covering all the changes in detail. The settings button is really easy to miss on the opposite corner of the modes menu btw.
Yeah I think it was a waste for them to sink so many resources into it and go as far adding a second camera, not to mention dropping OIS... Hopefully they'll give up on dual sensors next time, again.
Seems to produce a 2.5MP image (out thereabouts), Lens Blur that is. How does that compare to the HTC/Samsung implementation? I only tested it briefly, in low light no less which produced some clearly visible edge artefacts...
Vitruvius: Looks and appears to be just like the Olympus E-P5 but no interchangalbe lens and much worse specs.
OTOH, everything's a compromise, at 60mm you might have to walk back or might even run out of room indoors etc; whereas with an ILC you might miss the shot reaching for the 45 or 60 in your pocket if you aren't using a fast pricey zoom. :p My original point stands, the G1 X lens isn't particularly fast at anything but the widest angles, granted it's fast enough and long enough for some reasonable DoF control at max zoom (reasonable by DPR's own definition in that article btw, not trying to slight it).
That still leaves more common FLs (35-50mm equivalent) underserved but that's really down to personal preference, a M43 camera with the smaller primes (f1.7-1.8) wouldn't do super strong background blur at those FLs either; although it falls under either limited or reasonable by that writer's definition (depending on how close you get, 1.1-1.9% using something like my 20/1.7 from what I'm seeing).
The G1 X MkII definitely goes further in regard than any compact P&S ever, that's very obvious, it deserves credit for that. I'd take one over an RX100 personally, but I'm odd and I still put a smaller/cheaper P&S in one pocket and a smartphone in other!
If you go by the simplest boiled down formula in the second DPR link it concludes they would both provide identical degree of background blur... 60/4=42/2.8 I'm probably missing something obvious tho, I'll look at the formulas their last simplified equation are derived from and the graphs on your first link again.
My earlier statements were based off on the fly fiddling with a DoF calculator. I had basically just entered 60/4 & 42/2.8 and set them at 13 & 10 feet, which gave a shallower DoF to the f2.8 zoom, that was a mild guesstimate tho and I see that merely closing the gap by 1ft puts them at nearly identical DoF. Not even sure why i used 42mm either since the f2.8 zooms end at 35 & 40. I take it you agree they're pretty close regardless?
I think the comparison vs the f2.8 zooms is rather pointless anyway, as you said earlier, they're moderately large (certainly eclipsing the G1 X) and usually more lens than many ILC users with small camera bodies would wanna carry... Smaller 45/1.8 & 60/2.8 primes would come out well ahead but you're back to the original argument at that point, added versatility at the cost of bulk etc (I didn't bring the f2.8 zooms into the discussion btw!).
A lot of people do use the f2.8 zooms with relatively small rangefinder bodies tho, a compromise for the same reasons, to avoid swapping lenses. The G1 X MkII definitely does better on the fly, from 60/4 to decent close up ability which you don't get with a lot of ILC lenses...
The graphs plotted by your first link assume the subject is at the same distance while using different focal lengths Mr. Sincere, if you wanted to compare depth of field control while maintaining the same framing (i.e. standing a couple feet further back with the Canon at max zoom) then 42mm & f2.8 would come out on top...As far as I understand it, distance to subject matters (after all, it's the third value you enter there after FL & aperture, or in any DoF calculator).
If you just want the DoF control and don't care what you're getting in the frame then yeah, 60mm & f4 would come out on top (but it's a longer focal length, duh, so it's more restrictive in certain situations). It's the same reason I've recently seen people suggest a 60mm f2.8 M43 lens can (with similar framing) give you the same DoF control as a faster 45/1.8. Feel free to correct my logic btw, I don't claim to be any sort of expert.
In response to others, I made a comment just one or two threads up suggesting this Canon should be getting at LEAST as positive a reception as the RX100 originally did. I'm not being negative on it nor putting it down, nor am i stating an ILC is a better choice, quite the opposite (they're just... different). There's clearly nothing quite like the GX1 MkII out there. Heck, I even said if I hadn't already invested in an ILC I'd probably be giving this a serious look.