happypoppeye: Hahaha ...so many people here have no problem spending thousands and thousands of dollars on an accessory for their SLR and complain about DPR not reviewing them yet when someone with a different camera buys an accessory it's utterly ridiculous?
You mean, like, a pin sharp portrait lens or a backup camera for professional use?
Yeah, that's crazy impulsive behaviour, compared to this ingenious piece of equipment that doesn't make you look like a complete dork.
Come on. This is down right ridiculous. The idea, the look, the results. Everything.
shahid11235: No offense, but it seems to me that DPreview has got severely obsessed with iPhone.
Than why not include a range of direct competitors to the iPhone if you want to inform about the IQ? The S3? Nokia Pureview? Sony Xperia S? Amongst others.
Craig Atkinson: 5 vs 5d3!http://dcurt.is/iphone-5-vs-5d-mark-iii
Too bad the 5d3 image had a bad focus - clearly behind the sign.
I like what I see. I see more resolution and about the same noise, if not less than the D700. The colors stay strong and real at high ISO. I personally think and for my work, this is a better compromise than the D800 - which is not really a shining high ISO monster. I was slighty disappointed by the D800 images. You got tons of resolution, but on the other hand it showed a very processed look, noise showing up very early, albeit very thin. Which is no surprise of course. But these D600 images are very clean at low ISO.
I would like to buy it as a backup body to my D700. And give the movie feature a shot, would love to play with with 1.4 lenses. And use it when 24MP is needed (bigger prints etc...)
But I'm going to hold it out until the price comes down a bit.
I'm calling bullsh1t on the OIS ad.
That's pretty much impossible on a hand held phone. Heck even the OM-D can't manage that.
Well, they admitted it on there Nokia Conversations website.
"Note: The Lumia 920 pictures in this post were taken using prototype hardware and software, and then reduced dramatically in size. In addition, the OIS video, above, was not shot using the Lumia 920."
Shameful, but not illegal. Next!
@joe6pack Why does the van have to be there? They don't have the money to shot two different scenes? Come on now...
And besides, it's al over the internet now. It's not the first company misleading in an ad, but someone was stupid enough to make it obvious.
Take a final look at this image: i45.tinypic.com/244b5ud.jpg
Keeping the angle in mind, the space between the girl and the camera (very close), there is no way there is some guy on a bike around, filming and showing this particular scene. The guy in the van is filming and Nokia is pretending it is the guy on the bike.
I agree. So much fake in this video. OIS "on", but then filmed from a van instead of a bicycle.
OIS "on" in the dark street lights. But those images are clearly lit by strobes. Even those OIS-off images look fake!
Why didn't they even bother to edit out the van? So they are lame AND stupid.
And I really had great hopes for Nokia. Let's hope the camera (phone) doesn't disappoint in the real world.
nawknai: Finally, hipsters have a new type of film that they each discovered before his/her friends ever heard about it.
This is no more genuine than Instagram, so I don't see the point. Just use Instagram. This is just another example of the "bad is good" counter-culture hipsters trying to replicate a look and feel that existed in the past because of limited and imperfect processes and technology. Anything like this is going to be inauthentic anyway, as you're only getting these results by intentionally creating "bad technology". This is not a question of digital vs. film. This is more about film vs other film. In fact, compared to real Polaroid film, this is awful. It's like beta release of Polaroid film, before they perfected the recipe.
@ fmian Did you even read the first words about the background story?
A small group of dedicated employees from a closed and striped Polaroid factory in The Netherlands are using what is left of the machinery and intellectual property (almost nothing) to create a NEW instant film from scratch. Only because of their love for instant film. And because they spend most of their life working with it.
How those veterans can be compared to teens using Instagram and wearing nerdy glasses and skinny pants is beyond my comprehension.
When was the last time you and your friends created an chemical process to develop instant film from scratch with almost no means?
And claiming "they make it look bad, so they can be hipsters" is just even more stupid.
robjons: Every Samsung product I have ever used has had stupidly illogical UI. That plus mediocre quality and their blatant rip off of other companies (Apple of course) is enough to never come near one of their products. Have some integrity, look elsewhere.
I guess very very few people share your opinion. This camera is equipped with the latest version of the most popular and most sold smartphone OS on the planet. And don't get us started on your claim that Samsung copies everything. How you can shout about Samsung not being creative in a comment about a product that is the first of its kind, is completely ridiculous.
I guess companies suing others for having smartphones with round corners - even if everyone else already produced smartphones with round corners before that - has more integrity in your view?
alexzn: To the a...holes posting snide comments about this: when was the last time you took a picture with your expensive gear that was half as good as those posted by Dan Chung? When was the last time you got half as many good pictures as are in that blog? Probably not in your whole lifetime. Losers...
Dan- Congratulations with a great image stream, you proved that gear is not a limitation when it is in good hands. Of course that goes poorly on a gadget frak site like DPR.
"Of course that goes poorly on a gadget frak site like DPR."
You do realize this article is about someone using gadgets to take a photo, just to show he can take photos with it, create a buzz and especially mention the brands he used?
danstern: Way to go Dan Chung- nice to see some out of the box thinking. Shows talent + creativity + taking advantage of an opportunity = results. A few Picasso quotes come to mind: All children are artists. The problem is how to remain an artist once he grows up. Also another: Art is the elimination of the unnecessary.
I don't see "... in conjunction with some binoculars, a clip-on Schneider lens and the Snapseed processing app, he's been live-blogging..." as eliminating the unnecessary.
Don't be naive. This is purely marketing and PR. For iPhone, Snapseed and for Chung.
Lupti: So what? In my country it is priced around 550 €. For that price I can get a decent stills cam with optical stabilisation and good video capabilities with stereo mic AND a smartphone. Nothing to rave about this video sample, it´s shaky as hell and sound isn´t good, it´s pretty muffled and 128kbps is also nothing special, listen to the drum sound, due to the low bitrate it sounds too clanking for my taste. There are some pocket camcorders with better video and sound for sale.Smartphones are just toys without real value of use, photos and videos aren´t good, surfing the web is uncomfortable, the small screen gives you the experience of mouse cinema when viewing photos and videos and with heavy usage the battery will quickly run out of power.And phoning and writing SMS, I can do this with my 20 € cellphone as well...
Stop whining like a little girl. This is the best smartphone-camera money currently can buy.
How you can turn all that into such a negative rant with cliché-overload, is beyond me.
bearseamen: I am sorry, I can't possibly be the only one who's getting a spinning head by this kind of horsesh**.
Taking photos is something you do in spare time, for your enjoyment. Who in their right mind could possibly enjoy beeing robbed of 90% of the entire process?
Manufactorers act as they're bringing relief to the *chore* that is "mainstream photography". If its such a tedious process of taking a picture, why would you bother in the first place? Because its a social norm to take pictures of shiny happy people in the grass? Come on >_<
Why not take this further and invent something like an automated tennis rack for the hobbyist? It would play 10 times as good as the newbie consumer who cant even get a stupid portrait straight (see what I did there?) and guess what, you wouldnt even have to play on your own anymore! Pffff, stupid hobbies, wasting all your precious time.
Oh, and also make an article on the frontpage of some big website so that people can go apeshit crazy about it >___<
I'm sure you believe in-camera cropping and on-screen guide lines are also horsesh**?
This is just add-on to make capturing nice moments easier. Instead of taking several shots and asking people to wait and pose for a couple of more pictures, you have the option to combine the best expressions on the spot. Quicker and easier.
Why act like it is a a feature on a Nikon D4 that you can't turn off?
Alizarine: As much as innovative an invention it is, or as"smart" as this app says it is, I won't let any AI algorithm disturb what my sense of beauty tells me.
I am the photographer. I decide what's beautiful and what's not. I decide which shot to use. I decide which photo is good and which one is bad, NOT MY CAMERA.
I'd hate to say this but apps like this just contribute to making people stupider.
You clearly don't understand the concept, the context and the target market and just saw the opportunity to spill out some empty stereotypes about photography.
AmateurSnaps: As the article said this seem to make it as clear as they are willing - we will be seeing a 'budget' full frame camera.
As their are rumours that Canon are also looking at this the choices just get better and better. Next Sony ?
The pictures of the D600 are already out there.
That said, this looks like a fine lens. Although I already have a good 28-105mm f3.5-4.5 walk-around lens... if this lens is any good as my first Nikon AF-S lens - the 18-70mm on my first DSLR couple of years ago - it's a gem.
Price will drop, I'm sure.
olyflyer: The 18-300 DX is exactly the lens which is not needed. They should have made a 16-70/2.8VR DX instead. It would have been a much better travel lens, as well as a very useful all purpose "normal" zoom. What's the point of making yet another consumer superzoom?
That 16-70 VR f2.8 would be huge and cost near $2000.Look at the size & price of the current 17-55 f2.8.
That would have made more sense?
Northgrove: $1000 for a lens aimed at travel photography? How about a Fujifilm X-S1 at $600 for more compact and lighter travel photography with a 24-624 mm equivalent zoom? After all, users of this will be looking for range, not optics.
My point is that all the corners Nikon will have to cut to get to such an extreme focal range means the focal range will be more important than the optical quality to them. And then a $1000 price tag for that aim. Just buy a long range compact camera? Optical quality will be priority in: neither of the cases. So you can just as well focus on travelling light and both your neck and credit card will be happier.
A well-made ultra-zoom on a nice APS-C body is no comparison to a ultra-zoom compact in terms of image quality.
If it's an awful lens, Nikon would have never launched it.
chiane: Am I the only one that doesn't want a camera that looks like it's from the '70's?
This lay-out and form factor is proven and appreciated during decades, why would Olympus keep far away from it?
Instead of seeing it as "just a 70s body", try to see it as a "small, ergonomical SLR". It's not really that hard, really.