RichRMA: All this "demanding" fast lenses. m4/3 buyers do not buy fast, expensive lenses. Remember the 4/3rds lenses like the 150 f/2.0 and the 14-35mm f/2.0? They cost like Nikon FX lenses, $2000 or more and very few probably sold. Tamron, Olympus and Panasonic are giving the average mirrorless buyer what they WILL buy, not what they fantasize about, without the funds to buy them.
I can't speak for other m4/3rds owners, but I have a fast prime lens which wasn't cheap, the powerzoom 14-42 (mid price), the 3D lens (cheap novelty) and the 100-300 (which wasn't cheap). There are two things which stop me buying really fast lenses, the price and the bulk. I genuinely take my entire camera kit with me everywhere, every day, so bulk and mass is an important factor, and some of the lenses would be too much.
dash2k8: For that price we could just buy a Wacom, albeit a small one. With the Wacom you won't have to worry about scratching your screen while getting much better pressure feedback. I bought the Jot Touch two years ago and it's just not the same.
have you tried a Samsung Note?
MarcMedios: We need the android version
maybe Samsung could make such a thing. They could call it the Galaxy Notepad. oh wait.:-D
Tandua: too late, I sold my nikon gears for canon + fujifilm
At least Nikon are eventually doing the right thing, it gives me more confidence in them and increases the likelihood of me buying one.. eldest daughter might get a Nikon for her 18th birthday.Whereas Canon's denials of problems with the EOS-M means I am much less likely to consider them.
Peiasdf: "....It's also designed to release the lens on a hard impact without a twist in order to minimize potential damage to the lens and device if it was dropped...."
Name another lens mount that have this capability. Samsung fanboys... I don't know if they can read or not.
apple invented magnets dontchaknow. and electricity.
Bhima78: Smartphone sensor tech isn't there yet (it will be but not yet) to give you shots much better than a midrange point and shoot. This is pointless as it still requires you to carry a lens around as well as your phone. Might as well pick up a compact camera with a better sensor.
the basic geometry of a phone simply doesn't allow for the thin small phone with small sensor and lens to compete with a compact camera.
that said, phone manufacturers are doing a great job of optimising the phone to make the most of what can be achieved.
Greg Garner: You should really check the Dimple out, I'm waiting for their launch to buy one, it works with nfc and has four buttons. Pressy still have not shipped my order even though it has been over 6 months...
yeah, dimple looks goodhttp://dimple.io/
Aidan Jaros Grilli: someone put the EF 50mm f/1.0 on the nex with the speed booster
my god, man, that's dangerous, you could cause a black hole to form, such is the light gathering power!
I've had a Sony camcorder for about 8 years which had a bluetooth remote control option (allowing viewing of what the camera sees), as well as traditional IR.
My Sony Xperia phone can be controlled by my Sony smartwatch which controls it over bluetooth, and acts as a remote viewfinder.
I cannot see how Apple can claim to be innovative here.
vroger1: WHAT IS MOST INTERESTING ABOUT THIS ARTICLE TO ME IS THAT THERE IS TREMENDOUS LEGITIMACY TO M-4/3 WITH MORE AND MORE MANUFACTUERS JUMPING ON THE BANDWAGON. THE PROBLEM IS THE NUMBER OF M-4/3 DIGICAMS WITHOUT VIEWFINDERS. NON-AUTOFOCUS LENSES SUCH AS THESE ARE HARD TO HANDLE WHEN NOT USING A V/F. THE ANSWER? ALL M4/3 DIGICAMS SHOULD HAVE EITHER INTEGRAL OR ACCESSORY EVF'S.
@yabokkiem4/3rds lens come in a huge range of choice of quality and price.choice is good.
Digitall: Poor camera. So many people who would like to have this camera, and here we see the bodies to be autopsied. RIP
Apart from wrecking the rubber grips, I imagine he probably managed to put it back together and make it work.
grock: I used to think the comments on indie music blogs were the worst, but photography websites are really catching up. So much freaking jealousy and pettiness. So many people here can't stand it if someone is successful if they have what are deemed to be less than perfect technical skills with a camera, or if their composition seems amateurish or non-groundbreaking. Photography exists so that people can look at and enjoy photographs. Guess what? If someone enjoys looking at a photo you took, you succeeded. Nothing else--the brand and cost of your camera, the artistic merit, the people paying for the photo, the post-processing, the lack of preparation, etc-- matters.
You're a sad troll. Very very few photographers are so gifted they can earn a good living from their photos. I know many such who w Ireen on other professions earning good money, and they devote a large amount of enjoyable time to their hobby.Otoh, I know some pros who are good yet not famous who have to with very hard to make a living and it can be burden to them
vFunct: The best kind of photography are street photography, like this guys.
The worst kind of photography are the garbage you see on 500px. That site is filled with thousands of photographer, all without a sense of taste.
The funny part is that those idiots have NO clue why they are terrible, or why street photography is more valuable than landscape photography. They have no idea how worthless their photographs are.
Remember, if you think the landscape photography you find at 500px is good, you are a terrible photographer, and you should be ashamed.
Professionals laugh at you, just to let you know.
Please post a link to your online gallery so we can see your photos you deem to be worthy
CyberAngel: Every release is more demanding on an older hardware.This time I was expecting FHD screen, but nope.Have to wait another year for iPhone 6+I don't now if mono-CPU Android phones are Lagdroids,but Apple is seriously lagging on features.no OISno NFCno FHD screenno wireless charging, but does have a finger-off reader
I implanted a Qi coil into my Samsung and have a Nokia charging plate at my desk at work. I can top up my phone if I've been using it a lot, and never need worry about wearing out the phone's socket again, or snagging the cable. Total cost about £28, or equiv US$42
Sam Carriere: This is all pretty irrelevant. Photographers use cameras, not phones. And to everyone who wants to show me a superb picture taken with a phone, all I can say is "Just think what that person might have done with a real camera."
Ansel Adams might have used a mechanical camera but his cameras took medium or large format film and so his "sensor" was 80 square inches, just a wee bit bigger than that in any phone's camera, even Nokia's.
Sam Carriere: The simple answer to the question asked in this title is "nothing". Real photographers do not do serious work with phones.
Tinley,try one of the Lumix cameras. compact & light with great image quality.
I think there needs to be a -0.5 as well as a +1 button
That is to say community moderation/ voting accentuates the positive.
Meanwhile I think dpreview generally has quite good commentators and are worthy of reading. If you want to see how bad it can get, go to Boy Genius Report; there are trolls trolling trolls where people have set up parodies of other people's usernames just for that!
CNY_AP: Kodak DC360 was competitive and I almost bought it, but ended up buying the Olympus C3000 ($800 for 3MP). That was 1999, but I had followed digital cameras for a year before buying one - when the various sites were just coming online. I think it was steves-digicams who used to give prizes at multiples of 100k page hits (which took quite awhile to reach!).
My first digicam was the Olympus C3040Z, and I think it cost me about $800 with a 128MB smartmedia card.The key reason I bought it was that the quality and resolution had reached that tipping point where you could take a picture, crop and scale it and it would look really good on a 1280x1024 monitor, or print it at 10x8 and be quite pleased with it.
The C3040Z had an amazing feature set, and when I gave it away to a friend who was very poor but very keen to try digital photography, there were many features on the Olympus that my replacement camera, a Canon A710IS, lacked.
NotSteve: What is the point of photojournalism, or journalism for that matter? I just don't get the point of this photo essay. At best, it is vacuous and states a very silly truism -- gaining trust of one's subject matter as a photographer is important.
What news is Karen trying to bring out? The existence of the Klan is not a news flash. What burning social questions is he trying to address?
In Canada, activists did serious to make sure the Klan could not come north. Their politics are truly reactionary and retrograde, and the Slate article portrays them as some quaint, obscure, secret society. The fact that he (and Slate and DPR) seems to have to little to say about an organization that has as history of seriously criminal activities, seems to be an indictment of photojournalism/journalism, more than anything else.
people who see the KKK and go on to assume all white people are going to be bigoted and racialist, are just as prejudiced as people who see a news story about a black criminal and assume all black people are criminal.
therefore, I feel no shame at being a white male, the same as the KKK male gang members.
what I feel shame is that our society still has living members of these kinds of organisations; that the spotlight of progressive multiculturalism and education hasn't shone into these dark corners of the USA and shown them for what they are.
"the best thing that you can do creatively is to give yourself limitations"
This is why I take all my photos standing on one leg, one eye closed, one eye behind my back, using a tatty old Nokia 640x480 phone camera with a scratched lens.
Sure, the photos look like those a child's toy might take, but it's intentional, and so it's *art*. I'll be rich and famous, one day, you'll see!