 |
IEBA1
Lives in
TX, United States
Works as a
Videographer
Joined on
Jun 1, 2011
|
   |
|
Connect with dpreview
|
Rage Joe: The capability of the optical/ image stabilisation ( or the lack of it) should have been tested too, since people take the majority of their images handheld.
That could have been done fairly using some sort of device to move all the cameras the same way while taking the shots. The easiest way to do this could have been to mount the cameras on a car and drive the same track at the same speed and taking a lot of shots, then comparing them. Could you please do this?
and can you do a skydiving comparison when you're done at the race track?
SimenO1: I wish dpreview would compare similary scaled photos. 100% 1:1 pixelmapping is NOT the same scale since each photo have different pixel counts.
I disagree. Seeing the images represented 1:1 on the screen means this is what it would look like on my computer screen. I don't want to see how it would look interpolated so all the images match size- because then we will all question the interpolation used and how it's not a true representation of the actual camera results.
pretol: The reviewers keep doing this per-pixel quality, which is irrelevant! the pictures need to be compared per-actual-scene. When I zoom in for detail, I don't care about number of pixels, I care about the actual detail on the object being photographed..
It's the same "oh per-pixel quality is much better on HTC one", who gives a rat's ass when CLEARLY detail is MUCH worse on it. Taking this to extreme, you can replace the whole image with a single super-sensitive pixel with very sharp edges. You'll have amazing per-pixel quality with amazing iso, but alas... only one pixel.
When you zoom in for detail, what do you think provides the detail you're zoom in on- the pixels.
Otherwise we'd all still be shooting 640x480.
siberstorm27: Hello. I'm trying to choose my next smartphone and I want to take great pictures with it, mostly indoor shots. However, I have shaky hands and a lot of my images tend to blur. I also don't want to constantly take multiple pictures to get a useable one or have to mess with and experiment with settings. They are all time consuming and the best moments don't wait around for you to frame your shot with the best adjusted settings. Which one of these phones takes the best photos the first time around and is the most consistent and well-rounded on auto mode?
I think there are also phones with a real flash. This "strobe" will freeze the action much better than any LED will.
I love this comparison. For those who value quality images, and will have the phone with them all the time, this sort of comparison is WAY WAY more valuable than individual reviews.
Of all the apps on my phone, I have several FOLDERS of imaging apps. The picture-taking ability is critical.
They can all make calls, and get mail, browse the web. But how well they take pictures DIFFERENTIATES these phones.
I really hope there's a part-2 where you compare VIDEO prowess. Bright, dark, motion in bright & dark, and lastly, if exposed to preserve highlights, can detail be recovered in the darks, or does the camera's video compression obliterate the details.
Thanks again and I look forward to more comparison articles.
Now, if someone can make an amplified speaker for skype / facetime calls, I'm in.
Goodmeme: relatively inefficient my ass. why don't dpreview review sanyo eneloops?! :)
Yea, my first thought was WTF with the "opinion" slipped in the middle of the announcement there.
My GH2 has a 1500 mAh Lion battery. I can get 2700 mAh rechargeable AA's. And, if I'm out somewhere and my batter goes dead, I'm not SOL, I can just go get some alkalines and get some more pictures.
Or, if it's seldom used, a set of Lithium AA's will sit there, in a drawer for years, ready to take a picture of Bigfoot when he walks past the cabin window. Fat chance of a rechargeable lasting like that.
Man, that dig is just SO out of place for DPrieview.
ogl: the most Boring camera ever made
Yes. Yes I am.
Gordon W: Canon obviously spent a lot of effort coming up with an APS-C mirrorless that won't cannibalize their DSLR sales, but the end result is pretty unappealing as a result. Kind of like Photoshop vs Photoshop Elements.
If what is intended to be a small camera won't fit in a pocket, I can see no reason not to incorporate an EVF. I detest being forced to use the rear display as a viewfinder and therefore would never buy something without an EVF that’s too large to be pocketable.
Exactly- why bother to make it small if you have to attach a lens that gives it considerable bulk, or carry multiple lenses to try and do what a compact travel zoom does in a genuine pocketable device.
FTW: Imagine all camera makers would find a way to one single common M mount, what a wonderful world of lenses we would live in. So, no need to say that the EOS M looks like a NEX-5 with some less features. It probably makes same good picture as the NEX. It is a better IQ tourist camera. Just ask myself why this "pocketables" like this one too, are made with that bulky lenses. They should be sold with pancakes as a standard kit lens, that makes sense, not this bulky thing like Sony has it also. And then, why pancakes in 20 or 22 mm. An alround tourist pancake needs between 12 and 16mm.
Yea, I don't get the whole segment.
It's more compact!
Unless you wan to use a lens.
Then you might as well use a DSLR so you can have more buttons, more control, more features and easier operation of all of those.
Until they start making a compact travel zoom with a bigger sensor, or even the same size sensor with less pixels and IQ as the primary focus, I'll stick with what I got. There's zero incentive to use any of these tiny ILC.
I almost thought this was my next camera, but a 3x zoom is not what I want. I'll take a bigger camera, even Canon XS-20 sized, if you can give me a 12x-15x zoom, tilt-swivel display, and the large sensor for very high IQ.
They talk of a hole in the sensor size market... well there's also a hole in the compact travel zoom that focuses on image quality over pixel count or zoom range or gps, etc. Like a HX9v that has a 10 or 12 MP sensor and really good glass over it that really provides good low light, no need for heavy noise reduction, and stellar image quality.
"We didn't notice much rolling shutter effect.."
It has a CCD, nitwit. Rolling shutter is a problem with CMOS sensors.
CCDs can deliver ful HD, and they can deliver higher FPS. DSLRs based on CCDs have done that for years. But it's the cost savings that keeps higher quality & faster image processing out of the camera, and the pixel count chasing that robs the sensor of light gathering that would reduce nose... that hurt this camera the most.
Put in a 10 MP sensor with larger, light gathering pixels, and bump up the processor to handle higher FPS and 1080p30, at least. Canon, the G1X was the camera no one asked for. We want something between features without quality (this) and quality without features (that.)
"So has Canon cut too many corners in pursuit of cut-price capability?"
Yes.
Jim Keye: 10 fps is pretty darn cool. But the wi-fi? In a "rugged" camera? If there's one camera that's likely to be taking pictures where a tablet doesn't exist and a cel phone doesn't work, it's /this/ camera. And they chose this feature over GPS? Hmmm.
I think it's great, if it works right. No need to open the door and get the card, and use a computer or accessory to get th photo into your phone to share it...
Why would I need GPS? If it's a family trip to the shore, I can tag all the photos later. I don't need a power hungry, slow, costly GPS to tag every image I take when it's not anywhere near as useful as being able to get access to the images seconds after shooting them, with zero accessories.
Love Jeff's Stuff. Hopefully he's getting paid what he's worth here. I bought my Canon S2 IS and used it heavy for 5 years per his recommendation.
Jeff's recent review of the ZS15 was much more favorable than the ZS20.
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/panasonic/dmc_zs15-review
tkbslc: I want to be the first to complain about the lack of Pentax mount.
I'm the target market for this lens and I have to admit that I laughed out loud at this!
Wow. Good thing this is the "compact" zoom.
I'd hate to see the non-compact zoom.
:)
This allows companies to fire half the staff and put that money into these cameras, and then have the other half do double duty.
Actually, they are already doing this. Newspapers have video on their web sites shot and edited by the still photographer who goes out to cover an event because they want to keep their job. If they don't, there's a dozen art school graduates waiting in line for the opportunity to "make movies" to a pittance.
Make it a wee bit bigger and put some extra "cheeseplate" holes on it for accessories.
I like that the stats are clearly posted on the cards. But I was expecting that an announcement of a new card with full UHS-I compliance would be FASTER than current cards, not EQUAL to current cards.
Hey, check out the new FAST corvette, it goes just as fast as the other fast cars. Woo hoo.
BeanyPic: Has to be the ugliest product I've ever seen. Don't care how good it could be just couldn't have one out and about. UGLY........
eye of the beholder. I think the red one kicks a**.