BigBen08: Honestly, I don't know if I'll buy the Note 5 or not. The expandable memory and replaceable battery were two features I really like about previous Notes. Ok, the fixed battery isn't so bad, but I'll miss the extra memory.
I think I'll hold off until the beginning of the new year, to see what else hits the market. But it would have include a stylus, similar to the S Pen, since a note-taking device is also important to me. But what other phone could come up to the Note, for taking notes?
Ugh, what a dilemma!
The battery is replaceable, just not user replaceable (unless that user also happens to be a smartphone technician with the right equipment). If in the unlikely event the battery falls below expected performance parameters during the warranty period it will be replaced by Samsung for free (according to their warranty documents). If it otherwise fails outside of the coverage period then it is generally not prohibitively expensive to get that sort of work done.
More of a hassle, certainly.
Mr Low Notes: After reading the article and comments yesterday and then the comments today it's clear nobody approves of removal of the microSD card slot and user replaceable battery on the Note 5. Especially other Samsung Note series owners like myself. Shame on Sammy for this. When the sales figures for the Note 5 take a deep plunge they will get the message....... We hope....
Like a lot of people I was fond of touting the benefits of a user-replaceable battery and a MicroSD slot in Android devices. But after owning 5 high-end Android devices, never needing to actually replace a battery, and never needing more than about 32GB of storage, I realized that for me personally these "benefits" were more placebic than practical.
I realize of course that some people actually do have a legitimate need to do battery swaps, or take the storage configuration into their own hands, but I suspect that such people are enough of a minority that Samsung probably wont lose many sales.
thejohnnerparty: This new image processing and senor technology looks very promising. If it lives up to the promise, how are small senor P&S cameras going to survive?
By continuing to offer longer focal lengths.
Whenever smartphones are designed with lenses that offer a significant amount of zoom they get chunky, and most people don't want chunky smartphones. So until we see new optical technologies (DynaOptics' lateral zoom lenses for example) become mature enough to offer a decent quality zoom solution in a tiny package we'll still have people turning to dedicated cameras. And that's to say nothing of the preference that many people have for EVFs and proper camera ergonomics in general.
Robert Garcia NYC: I love grain in my images reminds me of film.
There's grain and then there's noise. And there's "noise" and then there's _noise_. This noise is a bit yuck imo.
When are you guys going to graduate from using ACR for noise reduction when dealing with high ISO output? If you're going to post RAW conversions in a sample gallery at all why not show people what is possible when using more sophisticated tools?
Surely you guys have a copy of DxO Optics Pro at the office? I'm not saying you should switch converters entirely as there are plenty of people who use DxO Optics for the PRIME noise reduction module only and do the rest of their adjustments in LR or whatever.
Ittenomis: As if camera phones weren`t already bad enough, Samsung is striving to make them worse.
I said that's what they are _striving_ to do.
I don't care about marketing; I care about facts. And the fact is that if you look at the history of digital photography you will see that sensor efficiency has improved over time as a consequence of a constant series of incremental improvements in sensor technology. And increases in efficiency mean you can either:
1) produce better quality images using the same sensor type or
2) reduce the sensor area slightly without a performance penalty
Will Samsung actually pull it off? I don't know. Theory is one thing, implementation is another. But if they do succeed far from it being miraculous it will simply represent the next incremental improvement in sensor efficiency.
iAPX: For me there is "an image quality tradeoff " since many years, and I would dream to see 6MP or 3MP camera sensors with the same surface, to increase Dynamic Range and reduce Noise.
Plenty of people don't buy things that are true, but thankfully that doesn't change reality for everyone else ;)
(most people who make this mistake don't think to compare output at the same print/display size)
Besides, I wasn't talking about parity within the same generation (even though in this case there is) but the fact that performance sweet spots migrate to higher pixel counts _over time_.
arhmatic: Manufacturers needs to stop this thin device craze forever.
Image quality is more important. Battery life is quite bad, most phones barely last through the day... Phones are uncomfortably thin to hold.
Samsung, apple and the rest, please stop this.
Yes, phones are so thin these days that they need cases so you have something to hold on to. But cases are good because they can protect the resale value (a damaged/worn case is better than a damaged/worn phone). So as far as I am concerned it's OK that phones are getting thinner because that way a good case with some decent shock absorption can offer better protection without the whole combo being too bulky.
thx1138: Just when you thought smart phone IQ couldn't get worse, Samsung admits they are trading IQ for size. Ridiculous
Sure, but we're not there yet, and we don't seem to have completely exhausted our options when it comes to improving the efficiency of existing designs either.
Also, you might be surprised to discover that at least one prominent CMOS sensor architect has some pretty convincing arguments for venturing more deeply into sub-micron territory than "conventional" wisdom might suggest is worthwhile. See: http://www.ericfossum.com/Publications/Papers/What%20To%20Do%20With%20SubDiffractionLimit%20Pixels.pdf
That's really not how it works at all since the performance sweet spot migrates to higher and higher pixel counts over time as a consequence of the evolution of sensor design.
And if you don't buy that, here's a quick investigation of the issue using actual image samples:
What they are in fact doing instead is striving to make them lighter in the pocket without compromising IQ any further.
They admitted no such thing:
"Samsung says that despite the smaller photosites, sensor performance is just as good as on previous models and conventional sensors with 1.12 micron photosites."
And it's certainly not impossible for them to be correct about that, as the history of sensor development clearly demonstrates.
joyclick: Canon sure know very well how to screw money out of your wallets
If they wanted to screw money out of my wallet they should have screwed in an EVF.
(this is my tribute to the poster directly above you)
guydr: A lot of whiners here over the VF, and why should you mention it one time if you can mention it 40 times. You're right it is a stupid decision to leave an small VF out (like in SX60) ,but it is not the end of the world because not everybody feels the need to hold the camera at arms lenght. If you're not have intrest in the camera iust for that, move on to the next. Something else here in my country it is 949€ for the camera and 1149€ for camera + EVF. 1149€ is the same price of RX100m4 here. The RX10m2 cost 1599€, so 450€ more is not a bit more expencive, it's huge.I'm gone buy one for the 600mm reach and the water resistant, but the price has to drop.
As far as I can tell you just complained about all the complaining, and then essentially complained about something else as well (the price of various cameras, including this one).
D200_4me: Sort of a hard sell if you look at it closely. You could get a m4/3 interchangeable lens camera with a kit lens in that price range or less ($650 for GX7 with kit lens), depending on what you want. Then you'd have a much more versatile camera (because of the lens options) and of course better image quality.
"24mm vs 38mm is a significant difference"
It's 24mm vs 28mm actually. Still significant for some but not so much for others.
"Also two lenses vs one adds more complexity and is a totally different shooting experience"
Like I said: It really boils down to whether or not you can be bothered with multiple lenses and the need for a slightly bigger camera bag.
Not really. Barely a day goes by on these forums where someone isn't comparing a fixed-lens camera to an ILC alternative, and since the pros and cons almost invariably run both ways such comparisons are useful to explore.
"Compare it with another non interchangeable superzoom with similar focal lengths."
Thankfully it is not up to you to decide what sort of comparisons do and don't make sense for everyone else ;)
The point is to match needs, not specifications.