At the cost of colors?Although that should not be such a huge problem considering how color blinded modern Canon cameras are.
bernardf12: I would like to see how Sony will fix the lossy compression issue with the already slow processor and limited battery capacity. I am not going to hold my breath for that one. That together with the lack of cheap compact fast primes makes it worthwile to wait to see what the others are up to next.
The fix will be called a7 r iii ;)
bluevellet: So... Why did Zeiss approve the FE 24-70 f4 and the E 16-70 f4?
"Approve" is just a word. They could really approve it, or just saying as if they approved it. No one knows the truth (besides them). Although, considering shining mediocrity of some of these "zeisses", I rather think zeiss simply gave a right (for a fee, of course) to use their name, nothing else.
Miki Nemeth: If you have ever tested the Sony A5100 AF-C mode with its brilliant touch-to-focus operability, then these improvements are straightforward steps further. I wonder when Sony is including touch-to-focus operation to all of its cameras? Since I've been using A5100, I'd be really hesitant to step back to a non-touch operation.
as it was said, panasonic did this and this turned to be quite useful
PS not interested in these anyway: eye level shooting ≡ lame.
TheProv: I really hate square format re-introduced by instagram, it's only a waste of sensible surface from my already tiny image sensor.In fact most frequent request in instagram app comments is "please add more image format" and I totally agree.
Square format is the easiest to work with. It would be the smart move to finally introduce square sensor phone, that would be the best move (except for video zealots).
Emacs23: Obviously marketing material for amazon to help to sell tons of low quality APS-C crap. Funny to see bunch of nerds here in comments who either have several systems on their shelves or ones shooting crappy pictures who is now talking about "it is photographer". Obvious: in case of the same mount there is no need at smaller sensor at all, just make larger with higher density sensor and this will end up in the way D8X0 eliminated any need in 16Mp APS-C or A7r made old 16Mp NEXes obsolete in terms of IQ.
@ThePhillipsSure it is, but those looks questionable.
Obviously marketing material for amazon to help to sell tons of low quality APS-C crap. Funny to see bunch of nerds here in comments who either have several systems on their shelves or ones shooting crappy pictures who is now talking about "it is photographer". Obvious: in case of the same mount there is no need at smaller sensor at all, just make larger with higher density sensor and this will end up in the way D8X0 eliminated any need in 16Mp APS-C or A7r made old 16Mp NEXes obsolete in terms of IQ.
Emacs23: OSPDAF for cellphone sized sensors is a joke: these tiny 192 points are just can't get enough lightThis is strictly the place for software predictive autofocusing
@ScottellyYou are not relevant here. At all.
Everlast66: There is something fundamentally wrong with the DPReview categories!
So we have "Enthusiast Large Sensor Compact Camera" category here and the LX100 gets 85%, but the Sony RX1 also falls in this category with several times larger sensor and gets only 79%. Surely the sensor (even with an excellent Zeiss lens) can not alone make any camera a winner, but the designers of the two cameras had clearly different criteria when designing the two cameras and the way they are categorized in the reviews affects the results.
Then Panasonic have two cameras in this category, LX100 and FZ1000, and they both get the highest scores (85 and 82) compared to all other cameras in the category, Canon, Nikon, Sony and Fuji ones that are mostly marked in the order of 77-79%. Either Panasonic have been insanely spot-on with their latest cameras, a DPReviewer is a big fan of Panasonic, or the categorization system is not quite right!
Sony cannot make good cameras, thus quite low mark.
OSPDAF for cellphone sized sensors is a joke: these tiny 192 points are just can't get enough lightThis is strictly the place for software predictive autofocusing
TravelPhotog: First!!! :)
I wonder if Canon truly believes they use the best sensor available in each of their cameras? They chose Sony for the G7X but used their own in-house sensor for the 7DII. Maybe they truly believe that, in looking at every facet of the sensor (whatever that means), it actually is the best in terms of overall, final image quality (despite a tradeoff of more shadow noise, thus reducing DR below Sony's sensor).
Sony has problems with readout speed at least. They are losing positions at μ43 and APS-C segments: μ43 is completely panasonic now, which has about the same performance as Sony did for Oly EM-5 but with much faster readout, the APS-C segment is Canon and Nikon-Toshiba.
Zeisschen: So finally a DSLR that is almost on mirrorless standards in terms of AF accuracy and FPS. If it wouldn't be 2 times the size and weight to achieve that, it would actually be an exiting camera... But sorry, it's 2014 Canon!! If you didn't have the large user base and lens selection, nobody would buy it for that prize!
You are a perfect example of creature H.Ford once perfectly described: “If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.”
"Phase" means nothing. The thing that really matters is that so called "Phase" can estimate defocus sign and value. Still, there are other methods to determine it, not just "phase". Panasonic uses pure software approach (they call it DFD) for this task. It proved its efficiency in practice. See here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=up8K_xd_iwU
Panasonic GH4 is pretty close to D4s in tracking, so I have some doubts if there's any real difference between GH4 and this 7d2.This panasonic is more accurate as well and focuses in dimmer conditions than 7d2: down to EV -4.
alexpaynter: The camera module is not the same because it has a new sensor. You can argue that the depth of the module must be the same because all other factors are the same, but they aren't.
I don't know if this is the case with the iPhone 6 but new sensors tend to be able to take light in from wider angles (the isocell is an example of this) and therefore the lens depth can be less.
Having said that, I hate the protruding lens. The could have made the camera the same depth as before with a flush lens and a much bigger battery.
I think I will just wait for sony z3x (if it isn't just someone's fantasy creation). I am not sure how you can fit a 2/3" sensor with an f1.2 lens in such a thin phone without any protrusion.
Z3x will feature curved sensor, this its lens should not be as large as one created for plain sensor
sdh: Does RAW actually offer benefit in smartphone-size sensors?RAW has real benefit with DSLRs and regular point-and-shoot type cameras because the image sensor can capture a larger range of information than the jpg format can store. But the margin decreases as sensor size decreases (decreasing dynamic range).Do smartphone sensors actually have headroom beyond what jpg can store?
And separately I can't help thinking that if you're fussy enough about your images to manually post-process RAWs (because there's no point shooting RAW if you don't) then you probably should be doing photography on a device with a proper handgrip and shutter button (ie a real camera even if only a compact and not a smartphone).
I would like to apply DxO PRIME on some of my phone pics.
BrunoH: "Some third-party camera apps and many Android phones have therefore been allowing separate control of exposure and focus for quite some time. "
Why do you insist on comparing with Android? Almost all Android phones have crap cameras.
The natural thing would be to compare to the best phonecameras on the market - Nokia Lumia 9xx and 1xxx series. Dont you think so?
And by the way. Nokia phones have of course had these options on all their phones!
DPR is always wrong, these guys are just bunch of amateurs with close to zero knowledge in theoretical digital photography and questionable photographic skills.
Ouch, I knew this. Sorry dude, panoramas you have posted are a pure joke.Sweep mode is a toy to try it once and forget. Guided google camera's mode thanks to its subtle control gives much more room for creativity.I just don't get the point of shooting long wide belts. They are crappy. I'm using "belt" panoramas in the way like this:https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12196364/gallery/2014.05.10/2014-05-1210.06.43.jpghttps://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12196364/gallery/2014.05.10/2014-05-2316.15.45.jpg
And google recently introduced rectangular stitching, like this:https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12196364/gallery/2014.06.03/PANO_20140602_152619.jpg
I said already: iPhone may stitch better, but it its panorama mode is useless. Google's camera is just much better for creative purposes.
"Sorry, but this is complete BS. I've very thoroughly tested the new pano feature of the Google app and found that, while it's much-much better than the sweep pano of the previous major version, it in no way can stitch frames as flawlessly as the iPhone."I cannot imagine how crappy sweep can be better than android guided mode, which gives subtle control over composition. And, possibly you don't know yet, android recently released rectangular projection for 3x3 stitch: that is really amazing.In other words, iphone may be stitch better, but google camera is just a better app overall.
iphone camera isn't any better than much of android crowd, you think too good about apple phone if you think it can compete with that nokias. There are also better android cameras, like xperia z1, etc. The only advantage I see on the iphone side is the shutter lag. On the other hand, android now has much better panorama engine (see google camera).