It seems to me that they should be doing something a little more bold with their lenses, since the sensor will not be attracting that much attention. Image stabilization would have been a good way to set themselves apart, or a larger aperture.
itsastickup: Interesting. Giving functionality updates like this makes for an exciting and satisfying owner-ship experience, while at the same time Canon get to release hardware before the software is quite ready. Nice.
Seems to me that Canon has just chosen to enable what they could have offered in the first place. No doubt they did this because they didn't have a better way to extract money from people at this time.
Ando72: The design parameters, in order of priority, were probably (1) reliability, (2) reliability, (3) reliability, (4) survability of the space journey, (5) bandwidth, (6) resolution. If you only have once to get it right, and it absolutely must work first time, you start making different design decisions.
The Mars Rovers used 1980's tech processors, primarily because NASA had already done the "space-izing" to ensure they were reliable enough for space missions. It costs in the order of several $M to develop a new processor and prove it to be reliable enough for space missions. I would imagine cameras and imaging equipment to be on a similar scale.
Just to add to that, Curiosity has main processors that are closely related to the CPU of a Wii or various older Apple hardware (some "G3" models), and lots of other small industrial applications. So you could say that after the design was thoroughly tested by many years of real world use, it was selected for radiation hardening. In this form, it runs much slower than it usually would on Earth, many years ago!
Poul Jensen: "A $2.5 billion project and their cameras have 2MP Kodak sensors?!?"
Yes, and you can thank your favorite camera manufacturer for the fact that their high-end camera technology cannot be used for science. Scientists need to know exactly what their equipment is doing, and the major commercial manufacturers won't tell - not even to NASA. And so scientists have to go to smaller manufacturers that are willing to cooperate and release full info.
It's a compelling idea that scientists should have the best equipment available. Unfortunately, commercial interests cannot be compromised.
Its not clear to me that the rover would benefit from high resolution sensors. If they need to see something up close, they drive over to it, and examine it with a lot more than a mere camera.
Marcelo Meira: It's great to see science at this level relying so much on photography. Anyway, they should've adapted a nice D4 to that rover too.
Do you realize that Mars is a fairly high radiation environment, that the communications budget is very limited and that the processing power is very limited? With those 2MP sensors, they will still send back a lot of images as jpeg only! Raw "costs" too much.
Paul Farace: Abe "Friggen" Lincoln on MARS!!!! It doesn't get better than that! And to think only last month he was a Vampire slayer! I am rather sad that unlike the Viking landers from 1976, which had US flag decals on them that could be seen in the photos, this lander apparently is generic, sans nationality. Don't think the Russians or Chinese would do that if this was their Billion dollar hardware.
"Four score and 92 million miles ago, our forefathers forgot their patriotism..."
I sing the national anthem to put my children to sleep. In fact its the only song I know.
Joe Ogiba: One huge advantage cameras have over the Nokia 808 is you don't need a 2 year contract with monthly data fees like here in the US with Verizon and others. Put the 808 camera in a Verizon feature phone like my Verizon Kin Twom with 8mp /720p camera and I would get it.
HowaboutRAW: Its not clear to me that $650 does buy me a "much better" camera. I already have a 7D and a 1000D, so I'm thinking pocket sized. Maybe RX100. Is it "much better"? I have no use for zoom (just another thing to fail), 20MP is stupid, but raw is nice. The 808 is almost certainly more pocketable, especially when I don't have to carry two devices.
AbrasiveReducer: The 808 doesn't cost money per month if you use it instead of another phone. (Or don't use it as a phone.)
You can buy the phone without a contract, and as far as I know, you can use it as a camera without any contract.
PaulRivers: Still just disappointed that there's no shutter priority mode.
That's the biggest thing that keeps this from possibly replacing my Canon s100 - I don't care about aperture priority, but in indoor lighting shutter priority is my most used mode - people moving at 1/15 just doesn't work, at all.
Damian: I'm less interested in a precise shutter speed than I am interested in a reasonably fast shutter speed. For example, a minimum shutter speed. Or... a minimum shutter speed per ISO level, thereby allowing interested users to specify the rate at which ISO is boosted as the scene darkens.
CameraLabTester: Damian Dinning should work for the big 2 camera makers.
He has more humane brilliance than the old wood out there...
Hah, the last thing the established players want is an employee that tells the simple truth!
gl2k: Nokia ... RIP. Too little too late.It took Nokia years to understand how the smartphone market works. It's all about apps.
gl2k: Why do you bother coming here and telling people that you are not interested? Obviously other people are. Your input is simply not useful.
A decent shutter speed is also important since the 808 does not have image stabilization. I don't recall that the review said anything about the shutter speeds that the 808 would choose.
Any word on lens flare? I have an N8 and my biggest complaint is lens flare, its much worse than a normal compact camera. If the 808 fixes that I can't see anything to complain about.
Thats a pretty good f-number across the range. This is arguably more useful than a 2.3x (or whatever it is) larger sensor. I don't have time to look it up right now, but I suspect LX7 can manage more than 2x the light that RX100 can at just about any comparable focal length.
I've slowly gotten wise to how these companies (often) come up with such great apertures: it seems to be free given a wide enough angle. However once they are nearer 35mm equiv, they are also much nearer f2.8 just like common pocket cameras had for ages (at 35mm equiv). Thats not progress if you don't like wide angle...
I find 28mm to be too wide already, 24mm sounds awful. Does anyone know if this or competing cameras allows a "default startup focal length" to be specified? That would be a convenient feature for me.
ALFREDofAVALON: The objections really have nothing to do with patriotism, but quality - aesthetics, visual grammar, protocol and respect are enough, without even bringing up the subject of patriotism and/or your disdain for patriotism.
His work is not inspiring, indeed. And if any subject should be depicted in an inspiring way, new, fresh, unique or otherwise, it is these athletes who are the very tops in human athletic achievement.
Who the heck thinks they have the right to denigrate their achievement with debasing them as common, by way of humiliating photographic depictions, under the phony guise of "unique or fresh?" They are anything but common. They are heroes, whether you acknowledge that or not. These Olympians have proven their mettle. They are in a VERY exclusive club.
Olympic Portraits are not really the place for photographers (or art directors) to contemplate their navels with the drivel of "fine art" absurdism and purposely offensive imagery.
alfred: Athletes are not heroic merely because they reach the top ranks at some large country. They doubtless worked hard to get there, which is admirable, but there must be a billion people on this planet who work just as hard to survive. But there can be no heroism without risk (i.e. risk of death).
Jimmy jang Boo: I don't own any Canon cameras, but this shows they have a lot of class.
Too many companies are so utterly clueless, if not out right careless in how they handle these situations. A a consummer it's nice to know there are still a few companies that don't skirt the issue. Kudos to Canon!
Hmm, the SD700IS was their first IS pocket camera and I knew 4 or 5 people who had one, including myself. I think almost every one of those cameras got a jammed lens, often rather quickly. I took one apart and found something jammed in the gears which appeared to me to be too large to have entered the camera during operation. So you could say that Canon has experience with this area!
Its nice that they will fix the issue, but they get no kudos from me.
MrTritium: I don’t find the EX2 aperture range that impressive.
Sure f1.4 at 24mm is a breakthrough, but f2.7 at 80mm falls behind the Olympus XZ1 which still gives you f2.2 at 85mm. And The Oly can still go to 105mm f2.5, while the EX2 stops at 80mm.
I didn’t find the full EX2 aperture vs focal length data, but I assume that the Olympus lens becomes brighter above ~50mm approx.
Eigenmeat: 24mm is nice, but ideally the camera would start up at 35mm or something more generally useful.
vlad0: i would take the nokia 808 over this.. if i am going to carry 2 devices, the second one is going to be a dslr, not this.
FF + 808 = almost perfect
vlad0: Yeah I'd probably prefer the 808 as well, but I am disappointed that they stop short of offering the software options that they could (i.e. raw and proper manual control).
Doug Frost: Why Nokia would put this cutting edge camera technology in a phone with a low-res screen that runs the Symbian OS is beyond me. This thing is a major FAIL right out of the gate.
Doug Frost: They need to ship regardless of whether MS is ready, and they needed to make that decision a long time ago. In my opinion it was the right choice to stick to their own OS, to eliminate as many unknowns as they could, and get the product out the door.
As for the screen... well I guess they must have felt they needed to control costs. The camera hardware can't be cheap.