jcmarfilph: If you really want to shoot using smartphone, don't force yourself or just eat your pride and buy pureview phones and not an overpriced mediocre iPhones.
How could you possibly know how much document editing anybody need to do and do in their phone? Not making much sense there.
Some people who like photography like to edit and share their crap phone photos just for fun or to share life with distant friends or relatives... Who cares really.
We all know the best tool for the job isn't a different phone. Regardless of personal priorities and hobbies it's nice to know out of the phones that have the features, specs, and apps you want which has the least crappy camera.
dpmaxwell: Can we please please have a spot healing tool for cripe's sake? If not in this then at least in Snapseed?
I think Pixlr or Photo Editor by devmacgyver have what you looking for, they are great free apps - especially Photo Editor.
bigley Ling: Nokia manufacturing needs to re look into the quality control of the camera components. It is just not a good having some with soft corners, some without, some more on one side, etc.
When people buy Nokia they believe they are buying into innovative technology and quality. The quality seems to be not as good as it used to be and the competition has caught up
I bought Nokia's top of the line a few years back and display went crazy just after a year was up...wife had a different Nokia about two years ago that would freeze and delete items after just a couple months time. They are definitely sketchy in quality and quality control compared to a decade ago.
Like this post... good move for Nokia.
As far as below discussion of windows phone 8...I don't think it's about people not liking it but newest apps/non-camera features being with iOS or Android.
When browsing for a new phone I loved the windows phone 8 immediate ease of use but after a few days with a phone that immediate factor is negligible.
Lawrencew: I still can't believe that wifi can't be used in movie mode.Such a straightforward thing (you would have thought) is putting me off buying this otherwise great camera.I just want to be able to remotely trigger and monitor videos.Dumb, dumb, dumb...
What cameras let you do this over Wi-Fi?
I looked at this Note 3 when picking new phone a few weeks back...didn't seem enough of a difference between this and LG Optimus G Pro for the Sammy to be 3x the price.
If camera quality is at the top of the list then Nokia's best seems the choice.
Hopefully other qualities of a good screen are present and battery life is decent enough. My phone is the Optimus Pro G with 5.5" 401ppi and this more than good enough for my poor eyes. Screen size and resolution do make a nice difference that is somewhat down played now with Apple two years behind.
For me display size makes the bigger difference but we are already at the upper limit here for pocketable phones. Resolution and energy-efficiency is what to work on.
Mikhail Tal: Sad to say but now I am actually looking forward to the OM-D E-M1 already because it has on-sensor PDAF so I can actually photograph moving subjects without losing focus. Plus it will have 5-axis IBIS, weather sealing, and the always amazing Oly jpeg engine, and maybe another surprise or two. That said the GX7 is still an amazing camera that puts most DSLRs to shame.
Puts most DSLRs to shame in video and compact size but other areas....
Bravo for dim lighting version - much, much more realistic
mpgxsvcd: Canon should take note of what Panasonic is doing. Panasonic actually removed some video features(ETC at 60p, multi aspect ratio sensor) from the GH3 that was in the GH2. They said that it was done to give the GH3 the absolute best image quality possible for a 4/3" sized sensor and they appear to have achieved that.
The GH3 still has the excellent AFC during movies that the 70D has. However, it also has exceptional image quality.
I just find it interesting that Canon is now playing catchup to mirrorless.
mpgxsvcd, stick with video discussion friend :)
High-ISO is slightly worse, e.g. compared to Pentax K5-II. Seems that all the engineering went into the LiveView-AF. Fuji's X100s and X-Pro 1 are better, too.
So for me, that's not enough.
X100S and X Pro 1 only better in making money and stylish looks. You can apply extra noise reduction to smear up the photo if you choose, who would rather not have a choice. Less noise is only better with equal or more detail - the Fujifilm cameras don't provide.
Ruy Penalva: What do you mean by:"Canon has made no fewer than 156 EF lens models in the 26 years since the EOS system first appeared, and it says that 103 of them fully support Dual Pixel CMOS AF, including all current lenses"
This Dual Pixel support means continuous video focus in those 103 lenses?
of course, just not all of them very fast or very quiet
Some of the samples for this camera look pretty nice, Panasonic processing is moving up now. Even the yellow and orange in images seem to actually be a clean color now without strange green hue smeared in.
I would caution people not to do EVF viewing majority of the time if you love your vision (photographers usually do right). If you truly hate LCDs then get cameras with an OVF.
John Miles: Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong.
Are sales going up or down?
Well then you're wrong.
Sensor size is growing in short focal length cameras, but needs to be shrinking in long focal length cameras. Also supply all sensor sizes with a 28-400 equivalent lens option. Remove video from some dedicated enthusiast small sensor cameras (or make a deep menu hidaway) and concentrate on providing stills optimal designs with manual zoom.
This continual never ending bash on about video is simply disproportionately represented in the camera market. This is rendering too many cameras motor zoomed, and biasing camera selection away from the small sensor, long focal length, stills photographer. Study Fuji's X-100 and X-S1. And their X20 and HS50. Then provide competition.
None of those cameras are in the top of sales numbers - that is what the companies care about, not thumbs up or high fives from photo/gear enthusiasts.
Most people don't want 28-400 because it is usually bad or huge.
Average consumer (highest profit area) takes as many videos as photos and do so with $100-200 cameras. Video cameras have taken a much bigger hit in the past few years than stills/video cameras. Over $300 is enthusiast realm until lines blend more and more.
aris14: Ι find it extremely difficult to see the use of these cams anyway...All these about street photography which needs some peculiar cams is IMO rather a philology.Street photography as a term/art does not need a certain cam with certain abilities or whatsoever, just something handy and reliable, top IQ is not its main quest.The only positive thing in these cams is that they explore miniaturization.
How is manually setting focus for a distance not the same as pre-focusing for a certain distance? Does not make sense. No matter what terms you use - set the camera for a distance using auto focus or manual focus, keep on manual focus, shoot when subject is that distance. You don't need distance scale on camera or the lens to do it.
It takes a lot more accuracy to do it with sports back in the days of no AF using telephoto lenses and large aperture than it does street shooting from the hip - nobody would use a distance scale for this but manually focus it first. Scales are never perfectly accurate and there were no laser range finders.
Sum it up - any camera with manual focus can be pre-focused or zone focused within 5 seconds time.
Dotes, which one don't have have manual shooting mode or manual focus out of the ones with a good sensor size and image quality? That is the ability to set low limits of shutter and pre-focus. How would you need it as a unique and highlighted function separate from these common modes?
JackM: I own the X100S and a Canon 5D3. The X100S has all but replaced my 5D3 for family outings and candids. It's a wonderful camera with wonderful IQ. If you understand the need for an aperture ring and a shutter speed dial, and being your own judge of exposure, you understand this camera. If you don't, you don't. The only other manufacturer who understands this market segment is Leica. The Gold Award is well deserved.
Felts what about any of the other large sensor compacts/mirrorless like EOS M I mention many times below. Very few times would all aperture and shutter speed and ISO sensitivity need to be changed rapidly. Never in something like pro-level sports from personal experience.
When I worked on the Sony team for the NEX development it was intentional to have the first models with less dials and buttons.
Personally I like to keep my index finger always on the shutter release ready at all times so I have my thumb doing all the settings and off-hand holding the camera. It is not necessarily ideal to be moving your thumb all over the place. It does depend on the photography.
Any $100-200 compact point & shoot with manual mode can adjust aperture and shutter speed quick enough. Rotate dial, hit one button, rotate dial again. Aperture ring is a bonus sure enough but romance how important it is - not realistic.
David Hardaway: Unbelievable. This is the first time I have seen such a terrible review. All of the samples are random snaps most likely in auto or program mode and the results are not matching the conclusion. Another point is that the conclusion pros / cons are of little actual value to the reader. Jpegs are excellent? really. A $1,300 camera that is given a Gold Award no less says excellent jpgs. WOW. and that isn't even correct. I looked closely at every single sample image and they are terrible. Same old issue especially the mushiness. I am beside myself with disbelief that the reviewer has any real experience and knowledge in this field. I am sorry to say this because it's not "nice" but this has to be said.
Scott you don't find it hilarious that you need to buy third party software to get what X-Trans fans are saying is proper results? It is already a very expensive camera that does not match the $299 EOS-M in still image or video quality. What is the main purpose of a camera?
All the buttons, dials, hybrid viewfinder, cool styling in the world does not mean anything if their use doesn't provide superior result.
Many people shoot RAW + JPEG and discard RAW file if the exposure is good - Fujifilm has a history of great JPEG on and off but it needs to be on for a $1,000+ camera and it is not. X100S JPEG has almost lost some detail at ISO 800 that the cheap, fail EOS-M has at ISO 3200!
X100S and X-E1 should have better detail than they do with JPEG, bundled software, and Adobe. Still, I am hoping to see a posted source of images converted from the recommended third party software listed all over the comments here - or it is only smoke and mirrors.
AngryCorgi: Really wish Fuji would go back to bayer filters on their sensors. At the very least offer ONE interchangeable bayer option for its really sweet X system. The IQ of RAW files with this idiotic xtrans filter still is way behind bayer-filtered 16MP sensors. Cameralabs.com illustrates this very well with their X-M1 review and resolution results. The EP-5 and GF6 even blow it away in JPEG and RAW. Please, Fuji, see the light and bring us a "B" camera that uses your "X" mount!!
"Looking at those results I think you are mistaking contrast for sharpness. There appears to be more fine detail in the Xe-1 files."
No mistaking anything - there is details of objects in the EOS M images that are completely missing in the X-E1 images.
It is like some people have a type of spell put on them by the hype and retro cool of these Fujifilm cameras.
Someone mentioned sharpening - EOS M has very low sharpening by default for JPEG file. This is like some type of strange religious debate where imaginations equal fact.
These new Fuji APS-C cameras do not have good detail period.