Dr_Jon: Hang on, for 79% more money than a Sony RX100 I can have a camera with a fixed wide-angle lens and a slightly better sensor but lots of the expensive stuff left out? Surely you jest...
I don't mind a fixed lens in the context. Digital zoom works fine for me, and I recognize what I'm giving up when I'm using it.
Regarding the score of 85. No argument that it's silly, but there is some level of honesty in regards to it. A big asterisk and often a note saying '70' for standard RAW images. Again, I know exactly what I'm getting and what I'm giving up.
I was looking at buying an Olympus Air, because I have loads of m43 glass. I was just going to slap my Panasonic 20mm 1.7 onto it and call it my travel camera. I changed my mind once I read out the DxO one. Yes, it costs more, but for the sort of photography I want to do (lightweight, on the go, when I usually have my phone) it hits a perfect spot for me. I'm selling my x100 to fund hit purchase. Maybe I'm just drinking the Kool-Aid, but it's tasty Kool-Aid.
BrightTiger: So much for DxO's unbias now that they are a camera manufacturer. Is it really worth it DxO?
Same sensor, different lens. Look at that back element. Have you ever seen a lens element look that silly? It's doing optical correction that the RX100 III can't do because it's a zoom lens. The fallacy is in seeing the DxO mark result as an absolute indication of quality. I don't have any doubt that the One has better optical performance, but that means nothing if I need a zoom lens.
No, not really. I sold my RX100 because it did everything half-assedly. This does one thing really well: upgrade my iphone sensor to 1". In that context it's brilliant.
Marty4650: Different strokes for different folks.
For me, this gadget makes absolutely no sense. I can buy a Panasonic GX7 for less than the cost of this iPhone plug in.
Granted, it should provide much better image quality than any cell phone camera can. Bus so can most real cameras that cost less. I think the smartphone cult is overreaching now, and creating products their customers really don't want.
The cell phone photographer doesn't need better image quality. They have told us for years that their iPhones are "good enough for their needs." This product makes about as much sense as a Nikon D810 that can send text messages and that you can play Angry Birds on.
But like I said... someone will want one of these things. Even if I'm not that someone.
This takes pictures that are on my phone, my primary photo sharing device, instantly. Every compact connected camera I've ever used has been an enormous pain in the ass to actually use. Maybe this one will be too, but I see it as an upgrade of the sensor to 1", without losing anything I love about my iPhone camera.
Coliban: A nice little gadget and a reasonable IQ for many people. I, for example, carry my iPhone6 all the time with me. But that is the reason for me, that i would not consider this camera as an alternative: IQ of the iPhone 6 is so high, i simply don´t need a mobile add-on, because, if i need better IQ, i would take my olympus E-PM2, which i carry also all the time with me. If i need even more IQ, i take the D800E. But i would not say that some people don´t need the DxO camera, it is a good alternative. For all presentations not on web, screen or "small" prints, i use the e-pm2 or the nikon. I am a little surprised by the enthusiastic reports on dpreview (the first "truly connected camera") but that´s their job. The ranking of DxO of 85, near the Nikon DF or better than the Canon 6D can be considered as a joke: DxO is measuring their own creation "SuperRaw". "SuperRaw" means, up to four images calculated down to one "exposure". (To be continued)
A 1" sensor is actually pretty awesome compared to the iphone sensor. I love my iPhone as a camera. This is going to make me love it even more.
JoeBingham: Read this...
There's been a lot of press about this camera, and DxO has done a good job (from their point of view) of controlling it. I love my iPhone camera, and I see this as a portable upgrade to that camera. Same features, larger sensor. That sells it beyond any other camera I'd want to buy right now. Who knows, it may be a dud in the market. It may be a dud for me, but it's the first camera I've been excited about in a long while (Fuji x100, which I'm looking at selling now).
kee808: Useless. For $599, I might as well buy the RX100.
Why does this thing not have a flash? Seems like a great camera for social situations. iphones take pretty decent daylight shots, but in dark or mixed lighting they struggle. I would absolutely be looking to take better flash pictures than my phone. Carry in my pocket out to dinner or to a party at the dimly lit bar or club. Impromptu sunset pictures (with fill flash). Even with a 1.8 lens, you sometimes need a fill flash to stop the action.
For the photos I saw on their website, landscapes, portraiture, still life, most of those photographers would be using a SLR or mirrorless. It seems to me the advantage of the small size is to take it anywhere, which to me is screaming social situations, which to me mens a great deal of the time I would be wanting flash of some sort.
It might be a nice toy if it was $299, but for $599 with no flash, I would just go ahead and get a RX100 to be almost as pocketable, have a flash and zoom, etc.
I had the RX100, and found it largely useless for the sort of easily transportable work I wanted to do. It was a fantastic camera, but it always fell short. Same with my X100. Too much to carry, too much to fiddle with, not quickly accessible enough from my phone. I'm pretty excited about this, actually. I was going to get an Olympus Air and just permanently attach my Panasonic 20mm to it, but quickly saw that this is exactly what I'm looking for. A good sensor for taking portable snapshots with.
MrPetkus: Readers may scoff at the price (and it's certainly not something I would personally spring for) but I know folks that do batch color correction and processing using LR professionally. A tool like this has the potential to increase productivity, ultimately paying for itself. There is actually a market for this sort of thing.
I know lots of Lightroom keystrokes, but I certainly don't use or know them all.
One of the things I like about VSCO keys it that it runs in a mode. ESC turns the mode on and off. So for the keystrokes I do know, I can go to "selection and rating" mode, then switch to "editing" mode.
The key layout for VSCO keys is very intuitive. Regions of the keyboard are assigned to types of adjustments, so you don't necessarily need to know that 'A' and 'S' are linked to contrast, and 'D' and 'F' are linked to exposure. You can hit a key and see if it does the adjustment you want, and hit it's counterpart if you got it wrong. It works with a more location based oriented muscle memory, rather than memorization based.
Really, try it, even if you have no plans to buy it.
Niala2: (maybe it's code comes from Paddy..? lol - see below)
"Always mooving forward" is such a brilliant argument, makes me wish to trust them and makes me feel convinced they care, and I feel understuuud.. etc.
Since dpreview does not mention it, and since we do have the ability to comment..:
Indeed lightroom has it's own shortcuts..
But never heard about Paddy ??? :
What Paddy does not mention(it's open source, might aswell donate them) :
next to be used with a Midi Controller (or a dedicated keyboard),it can also optimise the use of a Logitech G13 ... ( 1 year old.. : - http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=B2Y2MnM6RyA- http://www.derekclarkphotography.com/index.php/2011/07/lightroom-photoshop-workflow- )
..and be used in conjuction with a tablet..(http://www.wacom.com/en/products/intuos/medium.aspx)
Maybe somone could come up with an Android Interface for touch-sensitive Galaxy-Tab or Galaxy-Pad.. ?I would love that.
I would love to, but I'm a Mac user. I misunderstood external devices vs non. I believe that it works for you and provides value. Thank you for clarifying.
So Paddy requires external keyboards or midi devices to make it work? So much for using a laptop in the field. I strongly suggest trying the demo before passing judgment. I was skeptical, but wound up being completely won over. There's clearly been a lot of thought put into making VSCO Keys very usable. I thought the learning curve would be large, it isn't. I don't know my regular Lightroom shortcuts very well, but I have the "standard" VSCO binding nailed down.
I mentioned in a different post that the biggest downside is the web ui for creating custom layouts. It's really very fiddly to use, and takes far too many clicks to create even one set of bindings (one set of bindings would be six commands, three to increase a setting and three to decrease a setting at multiple scales). I though I would give myself RSI remapping the vignette keybinding to post-crop vignette.
So I swung a discount on this, which helped the price sting a bit. $125 is a lot, but after using the trial for just an evening I decided it was worth the cost.
I found their stock keyboard shortcut list surprisingly easy to learn, and it truly made me much more efficient at working on my images. I have a background in software development, and their keybinding felt like using the classic Unix text editor Vim.
The only times I every have to switch to using the trackpad are when I use the crop, gradient, paintbrush, and spot tools. It makes Lightroom such a better tool, and I wouldn't be surprised if Adobe takes notice and provides similar functionality in LR 5. They would be fools not to.
If you're a pro, an expense like this will probably be money well spent. For an enthusiast? I can see why you would balk at the price. VSCO might be missing the sweet spot on the price/demand curve, but they definitely have a winner on their hands.
My only complaint: the online mapping gui sucks.