Pentax_Prime: Posting articles like this on your main news page is destroying your credibility as an actual photography site. There is nothing 'must have' about any of this junk.
And yet you are here, rather than at some other site that hasn't yet destroyed its credibility.
liquid stereo: Jony Ive should give back all his awards. The guy is a design goofball.
First IOS 7 and now the POS M.
He really did need Steve Jobs to say "no, that's a turd."
Agreed. Form over function at all times.
Paul B Jones: I wonder if this is analogous to Photographer A taking a picture of an image by Photographer B - and then Photographer A selling the new picture.
That certainly does not seem right.
It's not analogous. At all.
It's clearly established that photographing a 2D work for the purpose of creating a copy (which is what you describe) is not allowed. And that photographing a public domain 2D work for the purpose of reproduction DOES NOT give the photographer (or anyone else) copyright over the new image (see Bridgeman v. Corel).
However, it's also established that when photographing a 3D object like a sculpture or building, fair use CAN apply, depending on the whim of the judge. In this case, an awful lot of legal scholars are weighing in, and most are as amazed as anyone else who's familiar with the case law (even though it tends to be inconsistent).
Lots of people here seem happy about this ruling, but think about it: Have you ever photographed a building or sculpture? Of course you have.
This is a very bad ruling for photographers, making the case law even more grey than it already was.
lxcellent: This is an ugly camera. I know that you should not judge a book by its cover, but why not make it look more like the classic rangefinder like they did in the LX1. Shoot. Follow Fuji's lead on this.
...and yes, the way a tool looks DOES make a difference!
What happened to DPreview's "Block user" functionality?
There's little point in coming here if trolls (lxcellent, in this case) can't be blocked.
Markol: I really wonder what it is he could not do with a current 400$ DSLR and the right lens. For what do they need the crazy resolution? Ok, maybe billboards. But technically, a modern DSLR should do the job just fine- I think.
The goal isn't to create something just for today's technology; it's to create something future proof.
4K it the Next Big Thing, but it's not even close to the Last Big Thing.
As in all areas of tech (and just about everything else), the less someone knows, the more they insist that what THEY use is the best.
It's similar to Mac vs. Windows vs. Linux. Those of us who actually develop software don't really care that much which we use -- they are tools to create, rather than religions to adhere to.
Caring about Nikon vs. Leica vs. Canon would be like a carpenter arguing vehemently that ONLY Dewalt hammers can build a decent house. You would instantly know that the houses this man builds are crap, because otherwise he wouldn't be so focused on the tools he needs.
ajendus: Interesting story but unless this thief kept opening Dropbox, this story is false. Dropbox for the iPhone will only upload photos for 10 minutes, and only over wifi unless said setting is changed, before it stops the camera upload. Only does it resume the next time the user opens Dropbox again.
It's not an iPhone; it's Android, which can automatically upload all pics to Dropbox.
snegron2: Dear Nikon,
If you make a digital rangefinder, many of us will buy it. We want something better than entry level mirrorless cameras. Sadly, even if you did read this post you would probably ignore it.
Nikon seems to have made this camera to fail. It was inferior to both micro4/3 and Sony's offerings in almost every way.
David Hardaway: I always shoot RAW. I actually spent several days perfecting SilkyPix to get results out of RAW that were same as jpg. I developed a process to export TIFF from SP that demosaiced the RAF perfectly then used lightroom for editing. I respectfully disagree with anyone who says its simply an algorithm. the simple fact is pseudo random and excessive green pixels require more interpolation in the demosaic process and the results will always be mushy. Color will also never be as true compared to Bayer. Bayer requires less and more balanced interpolation. It's just a fact. There is no way anyone that knows good image quality can say that any of these images provided in the dpreview of the x100s are good. If they do it's complete denial. And frankly I am concerned that DPReview would rate this camera so high while leaving requiring more "read between the lines" in the conclusion. I have been a dpreview fan since the first days with Phil Askey and could trust the conclusions with my wallet.
" It's just a fact. There is no way anyone that knows good image quality can say that any of these images provided in the dpreview of the x100s are good."
Anyone who disagrees with me is wrong, but I won't bother offering any evidence of my viewpoint at all except anecdata.
JDThomas: I find it interesting that people on this forum sit back and bash every new or different concept that comes along while doing pretty much nothing to further any interesting changes in modern photography.
It may be limited in application, but it's a relatively novel design.
Millions of people have a phone that does the same thing. I don't see any need to back new ideas, but this isn't one.
RobertSigmund: A real problem. We depend on reviews because we rarely can seriously try our stuff before purchase. I have been fooled for example by Michael Reichman with his glowing review of the crappy Arctic Butterfly sensor cleaning brush, and this was by far not the only time.
Apparently Amazon doesn't agree that it's a serious problem. I've come across numerous reviews over the years (increasing greatly more recently) from fake reviewers who had obviously cut-and-pasted reviews for items from the same company, or multiple users who had given 5-star reviews to EXACTLY the same groups of items.
Amazon has yet to respond to any of my notifications, and all of those fake reviews are still there.
At this point, I look over a reviewers history carefully before I believe anything they have to say.
attomole: Not sure that sticking an Android operating system on really helps, The camera phone market is lost to Nikon I just don't see what value they can bring to that, at the very best they will just be another struggling to make a profit, phone manufacturer, the cameras that Samsung Apple and Nokia are fitting to smartphones are good enough for that market, and improving
Nikon should drop Coolpix completely, concentrate on G series, 1 series, DX and FX sensor cameras only, built to a high quality with a standard suite for connectivity to WIFI or smartphones, as we will all be carrying one anyway (a smartphone) we will not want to pay for an additional data contract, particularly with travel so I don't see the point in building GPRS 3/4 G into a camera.
Obviously, by basing their OS on Android, they could allow non-Nikon folks to build apps like in-camera filters and better menu systems.
It's a VERY positive move, but Nikon missed the boat by making it next to impossible to develop for. Yes, I can run other Android apps on it (SLOWLY!) but really customizing the camera is WAY more difficult than just flashing CHDK on a Canon P&S. Devs need low-level access, and Nikon wants to lock users into their awful menu system.
Nikon should have partnered with Samsung, or even Cyanogen, to create an amazing photographic tool that would also appeal to developers and hobbyists. They could have done for the camera what Apple did for the phone.
Instead, they made a camera that can play some apps -- a toy, basically.
salehdidit: in a few years, everyone will be printing their own bodies and putting in sensors etc.
That will also signal a dramatic drop in the amount of whining on these boards.
"Seems a waste of time considering the current price of cameras."
Yes, I'd much rather spend $700+ on that magnesium alloy body than ~$15 on printing my own plastic one.
That's good thinking', PC Wheeler (and I believe lenses were included in the OP's "etc.")
Turbguy1: Next thing you know, 3D printers will be printing more 3D printers!
This has already happened -- in 2010! http://www.geekosystem.com/3d-printer-prints-itself/
arhmatic: With camera phones getting so much better, there is little reason to get a point and shot. The latest camera phones from Sony Xperia are waterproofed. Not as good as this nikon, but it's work in progress I suspect. More and better will come.
Point and shot manage to stay afloat with this niche markets, but this markets are getting smaller and smaller. The only way to stay in business is getting much better with image quality. Lx7 is a benchmark IMO.
It'll be a cold day in hell before I take my phone into the ocean with me, waterproof or not. There will *always* be a good market for waterproof point-and-shoots.
tkbslc: Too bad the author doesn't appear to know anything about moon photography.
Timer for long exposure? Widest aperture?
Really bad advice.
Just think of the great tips you could have posted instead of being an ass.
cgarrard: Being a photographer first I rather like this product. Let it be known that I absolutely hate the abuse of cell phones in our society and myself have a super bare bones pay per minute 40.00 cell phone that I only use in case of emergencies.
That said, this is the first time I can truly say a product with a cell phone with a camera gave me pause to consider actually buying it. I think the design is rather nice actually and unique among the sheep.
Agreed. Had I not JUST bought the Galaxy S4, this would be my next phone.
wayoutwest: I don't buy expensive phones and the camera probably wont be any better than a cheap compact, so this wont be on my shopping list.
Thanks! We were wondering what kind of phone you use. That's really good information that adds to this article.
W5JCK: A terribly small sensor, a lackluster lens, a cruddy OS, and no camera buttons other than the shutter. Not good, if you ask me. I can only imagine how uncomfortable and awkward it will be to hold and use it as a phone with that big tumor (errr, lens) stuck on the back. Even with the lens retracted it is going to stick out very far.
I rate it:
-- Ergonomically: an F for phone and camera-- Phone: a C -- Camera: a D since cheap compacts can out perform it
I question the wisdom and maturity of someone who "rates" the ergonomics of something they've never held and the quality of a phone they've never used.
Even Leica can't make an add-on viewfinder that doesn't look like a ridiculous afterthought.