USD $1,013. That's kinda steep for a phone, isn't it?
Where's the hotshoe? And those recessed dials must be a pain to operate.Another Leica for frivolous people. This Marc Newson gave us the Pentax K-01; wasn't that enough to issue a restraining order to keep him away from cameras?It was for a good cause, though...
ManuelVilardeMacedo: Most of these pictures have severe hue problems, suggesting poor white balance. It withdraws all credibility from this PR blurb we've been offered today.
It could be. Nevertheless it is awful.
Most of these pictures have severe hue problems, suggesting poor white balance. It withdraws all credibility from this PR blurb we've been offered today.
It is certainly a great camera, of course, but I wish I could unsee the picture of the silver version. I know looks are not that important, but that thing is ugly and the lens makes it look ludicrous.
This was written in the stars.
dstate1: Just another consumer point and shoot. I would never buy a camera without an evf. Plus, the bokeh sucks.
And the equivalent aperture must be something like f/128.
Superka: This is much better then DSLR. Let's shoot film again.
No Mamiya for me - just an Olympus OM-2n - but Portra 160 is the only colour film I use. Colours are just right with this film!
ManuelVilardeMacedo: It was all going well until I read the word 'smartphone'. A useful tool, they say, in that it helps with composition and calculating depth of field... WHAT?C'mon: a mobile phone is always in everyone's pocket and it's useful in case of an emergency; but saying a smartphone is useful for helping with compositional basics and calculating depth of field is pushing things too far. If you can't compose and determine depth of field by looking into the viewfinder, chances are you suck as a photographer. In such case the iPhone won't help your case.
Nigel, why did you take my remarks personally? Why did you feel insulted when I ridiculed the use an iPhone for composing pictures and calculating DoF?I use a 35mm film camera and lenses with DoF scales and I just trust my eyes and my experience to have a notion of how shallow or wide depth of field will be. I try to keep things as simple as possible. Photography is a visual art, not a science.I don't feel any need to show my pictures on DPR. I hardly see the point of posting pictures here, amongst pics of cats and cork panels. Besides, DPR is quickly degrading into a mobile phone website and I don't want my pictures involved in the process. Call me bigoted and arrogant if you like.Your pictures are of exceptional quality, by the way. If you feel the app is helping you photograph better, well... whatever floats your boat. But I guess you used to make beautiful pictures before the aforementioned app was on sale. Am I wrong?
Nigel, I can hardly imagine how frightfully difficult it must have been to photograph before they came um with this DoF calculator app.
It was all going well until I read the word 'smartphone'. A useful tool, they say, in that it helps with composition and calculating depth of field... WHAT?C'mon: a mobile phone is always in everyone's pocket and it's useful in case of an emergency; but saying a smartphone is useful for helping with compositional basics and calculating depth of field is pushing things too far. If you can't compose and determine depth of field by looking into the viewfinder, chances are you suck as a photographer. In such case the iPhone won't help your case.
Why isn't this on Connect?(Rhetoric question, no need to answer.)
m87501: "but few of us would ever consider using one for 'serious' photography except in an emergency."
That's what was said by many about digital cameras in the 1990's
Really? I don't remember anyone saying that.
AbrasiveReducer: Just one person's opinion but if my fist was bigger than my head, I wouldn't be smiling.
And in the colour picture the the model's forehead, eye and nose are huge, too. That's why there are 85mm lenses for real cameras.
Stefan Gunnarsson: I take a lot panoramas with my iPhone 5, Sony RX100 and some wtih my Galaxy S4.
The best panoramas are with iPhone 5 or/and Sony RX100. I look forward to dynamic auto exposure in iPhone 5S, because iPhone 5 does a poor job there. Sometimes my Sony Rx100 take way better panoramas and sometimes the iPhone 5 is better. I am not to impressed with my Galaxy S4.
I appreciate the phone cameras because I always carry them and therefore take more pictures. However I love my RX100 and it makes me leave my Canon 7D at home in many occasions. You know guys, the best camera is the one you….
I also "love" dpreview - only the whining in the forums makes me sad:)
ManuelVilardeMacedo: It's all nice and well - as long as you don't magnify the images...
Well, the one at the music concert didn't impress me that much - except for the woeful noise and the lack of definition.
Yeah, because one does panoramas like 9 out of 10 pictures, right?
We've also got a lot of bigoted gadget freaks bashing camera snobs.
It's all nice and well - as long as you don't magnify the images...
ManuelVilardeMacedo: Why is Connect still trying to impinge on us the idea that smartphones are a viable alternative to a decent camera? Look at those 4 pictures of the girl: they're ridiculous! Their lack of quality is embarrassing. The Nokia fares a bit better, but that greenish hue is disgusting. Even the landscape above, which is quite acceptable, has clipped highlights. Besides, people who take snaps with smartphones can't be bothered with all that tech talk. They just want to make casual, unpretentious shots, that's all. And that's fine with me. Just don't pretend these things are competent cameras, because they aren't.
Bigley Ling: small sensors performing like full frame would not be technical progress: that would be a miracle! That would be akin to trying to sit 40 people in a 2+2 convertible.