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.
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.
dannyboy5400: I love my Nikon and Canon gear but here is how it breaks down for me. I plan on getting a D800 for landscape, nature, product shots. 5D Mark 3 will do the portrait, fashion, wedding and video work. Why? Because Nikon tonality for skin takes me way to long to make look acceptable. I am willing to pay the price to have my gear be more specialized. If you can't afford it, pick one or the other and I am sure if you are any good then you can shoot great shots.
I don't understand "Nikon has a problem with skintones".
You only shoot JPEG?
oluv: i am not too impressed with the samples. at 12mm the edges seem quite soft even stopped down to f/4.5doesn't look like a 1000€ lens to me :(
And where do you see a sample picture where the focus is set on an extreme corner or a straight picture of a flat wall?
Don't confuse OOF with softness.
James22: Your article summary is incorrect. The standard camera is already a ~24mm FOV equivalent. This 0.8x adapter turns it into a ~19mm equivalent.
No you are wrong. It's a 23mm lens on a aps-c sensor, so its an 35mm equivalent.
This adapter makes it a 28mm equivalent (or a 18mm lens)
Marty CL: Ok, Leica is known for some pretty esoteric products. But a $7,000 camera that only shoots black and white ( sorry, "monochrome")---
@lxstormThere is nothing about this monochrome images that can't be done with another camera. There is no such thing as "magical Leica black & white". The only advantages are:
- a bit better high ISO (still worse than other cameras)- a bit better sharpness (nothing spectacular)
Please stop typing comments purely based on sentimentality and emotions.
Caleido: No significant advantages in terms of IQ over other cameras - even without the color array, there is still more noise than competitors.
It feels like Leica is in panic. They can't come with a better and up to date sensor, so they make it hardware b&w to get some extra ISO performance?
That, or Leica is mocking everyone.
plasnu: Those pictures are the most beautiful "Image Samples" ever posted on DP review, and I'm not a monochrome guy.
Simply breathtaking. Thanks.
Your sarcasm is a bit too subtle.
Leica is indeed the Hyundai in this case, sensor wise.
No significant advantages in terms of IQ over other cameras - even without the color array, there is still more noise than competitors.
plasnu: Better dynamic range than 5d3?
D700/D3 sensorD3s sensorD100/D70/D50/D40 sensor
And probably more. Designed by and fabricated for Nikon.