tabloid: There is a thing in law called 'common sense'
The 'youth' either took pictures of himself (which we all know he did).
Or the 'youth' sold it to another' youth' who knew it was a hot phone, as there was no proof of ownership from the seller. (common sense)
If the thief was going to sell it to legitimate phone purchasing company, he would have to have given them a specific code number inside the phone. (common practice), which would not be a good idea from the thief's point of view, as it would have come up as 'stolen'.
So he has 2 alternatives.Keep the phone, or sell it to another 'youth' without any proof of ownership.The buyer will of course know that that if he is sold a mobile phone on the cheap from a dodgy looking youth...lol, then unless he is a total moron he will know that its stolen.
I rest my case
You ruined your argument with the first sentence. If we enforce laws based on common sense then we don't need facts, evidences and witnesses to put someone in jail, we just find the most probable culprit based on common sense and put him away.By the way, do you ask for proof of ownership of every item you buy or make sure the thing was ethically made?
By the way, how does one know the guy in the picture is the owner of the phone? My phones normally don't have pictures and videos of myself, just of my friends and family. Were there any pictures of the "selfies" type?
Paul Brown UK: Whilst it is likely that these are images of the thief, you should hold in the back of your mind that these could simply be images of an unsuspecting buyer of a secondhand phone, sold to him by the thief..........
Really? Do you assume any seller who refuses to let you take their photo a crook? Even if he lets you take his photo this does not mean the phone was not stolen either. You can't prove anything this way.Besides, the guy you're buying from may not be the thief but the first, second, third owner of the phone since it was stolen.The only way to prove a phone was not stolen is by asking the seller to show the originial receipt or contract/warranty card with the phone's IMEI or serial numbers on it. If you go this far to buy a clean phone I hope you trace every product you intend to buy back to its factory in whatver country it is made in and check if the working conditions meet your ethical standards.
ryansholl: The complaining here is just getting unbearable.
If you don't think it's worth the money when you're faced with the need for lenses of a different mount, go ahead and search ebay, risk getting an item not as described (because that never happens to anyone, right) pay your shipping costs, pay the 4% or whatever to ebay and 4% to paypal from the sale of your own lens, and move on with your life.
When you know you've got a great lens, could it just maybe be that $80-$250 to not F around with all the potential perils of ebay might just be worth it?
You are assuming that:1/ The lens returned by Sigma is the same one you sent in.2/ The conversion process does not have any impact on the performance of the lens. Just because it performed great with the previous mount does not mean it will do the same with the new mount. A mount that is off axis just slightly can turn a great lens into an average one.3/ Ebay is the only place to buy lens.
This seems pointless. At the price they quoted it should almost always be cheaper to just sell the version you own and buy a used copy of the version you want.
Besides, what I got from the article above is that if your lens has like 2 years left of warranty and you send it in for conversion, that 2-year warranty becomes 6-month. So that is another limitation.
DouglasGottlieb: I was really excited about this card. I gladly traded the "pro" features for ease of setup, not needing an external wifi network, and direct to iOS transfers, which would be for client display (and fun) only, but not needed for my RAW workflow (I still like to do that on a Mac -- but maybe that will change with a hypothetical Lightroom Touch).
The big issue for me is that it constantly drops the connection to my WiFi on the iPhone and my phone then connects to my home WiFi network. Any suggestions? I really want to like this, but it is pretty unusable as is. It won't maintain connectivity. I'm on an OLD Canon Rebel (XSi) if that matters. The card fits rather snuggly too. Not a comfortable click into place, as with my regular SD cards.
The old camera has no EyeFi support, so I assume that it keeps drawing battery power, even when the camera is off. A newer camera may have better control over the EyeFi. Another excuse to keep saving for one of those 2014 new Canon pro releases! :)
It is likely that your camera by design cut off power to the SD card after being idle for a while. With no more wi-fi coming from your SD card your phone will search for the next available network (your home wi-fi).
straylightrun: Hmm, and I thought the Sony NEX 20/2.8 pancake was expensive.
Quality in what aspect? The Sony E 20/2.8 has more or less the same build quality as this one. As far as optics go you don't know if this one will be better or worse.
BBViet: Maybe I'm missing something here but what's the point of measuring the incident light falling on the Lumu sphere instead of the light reflected off subjects we want to capture? I mean, it is the light that is reflected off the subjects that hits the sensor. And how can the Lumu app suggests the right exposure if it doesn't know the level of reflectance of the subjects?
@JackM: I understand why incident light meters were useful back when cameras didn't have spot metering, but most modern cameras now have that feature so I just don't see the point.You mentioned Caucasian skin vs darker skin requiring different exposures. That is one of the scenarios where the Lumu is pointless, it doesn't know the nature of the subject and just suggests exposure based off available light (that's how it works, right?)
Maybe I'm missing something here but what's the point of measuring the incident light falling on the Lumu sphere instead of the light reflected off subjects we want to capture? I mean, it is the light that is reflected off the subjects that hits the sensor. And how can the Lumu app suggests the right exposure if it doesn't know the level of reflectance of the subjects?
absentaneous: can someone explain me what's the difference between mobile photography and photography? and why don't people say DSLR photography, compact camera photography, m4/3 photography, laptop photography, PC USB webcam photography, etc.?
Yep, they put the word "mobile" their to make them stand out from the rest of the photography world in a sort of "hey look at me!" way.
I wonder if even 1% of the target customers of this phone care for such technicalities in a review.
Stailick: Thank you for the hard work. Been waiting for a review like this.
I would like to point out that there are some inconsistencies in the final rating of the product. Specifically, when comparing to the G1X, the RX1 has a lower High ISO rating. Perhaps you have put the camera in the wrong category?
Have you considered going with absolute scores? No need to adjust anything, better performance = higher score, just like those DxO ratings.
Only feminists would find this insulting. As a guy, I wouldn't mind a tablet with a rugged/angular build and comes preloaded with apps for sports/bikes/gadgets/sexy ladies.
Nikon: 1/800s f8.0Sony: 1/800s f8.0Pentax: 1/640s f8.0
1/3 stop difference.
Inflated ISO rating --> "good" hi-ISO performance
And before you say it's only a third of a stop, remember that cameras these days are very close to each other in IQ. A difference of 1/3 stop translates to around 200 points in DxOMark sensitivity score around the 1000 score range (where most APS sensors are at)
The rules don't say anything about post-processing. To what degree can we manipulate our photos here? Light processing only or anything goes?
Plastek: "within less than half a year, we became number one in Europe."
- I call that: BS. Number one in what?! 1" mirrorless ILC segment? LOL.
Cause certainly not in mirrorless market as general. Sony with Panasonic take first 2 spots there, Olympus goes 3rd, Nikon? Somewhere behind.
That's the sales ranking for 4/2011 to 3/2012 (Japanese fiscal year)
Check the Germany, UK, France, and Russia entries. I assure you Brand A and Brand B aren't Nikon.
Granted these numbers come from Sony, but they are officially from the company and not from the mouth of some PR guy, so I would put more weight on them.
kapanak: Well, so much for a sub-$2000 Full Frame DSLR.
Both shoot full HD, yes, but D600 only does 30p, while A99 can do 60p.
What a clever way to promote a product (new Macbook). The title itself makes it kind of obvious.
ET2: K01 uses even stronger RAW NR (that you can't turn off) than K-5. See SNR graph of K01 vs K-5 on dxomark.
The RAW NR starts at ISO 3200
So they're deceiving the customers, that's what. People relatively new to camera hardware, who assume that RAW means raw and untouched data, will look at these comparisons and conclude that the RAWs of K-01 look almost as good as those from the D700 and make uninformed purchase decisions. Other companies might be doing this, too, but nowhere near as much as done in the K-01
onlooker: Rubenski wrote:> Post processing this will always look fake because you miss the graduality of shooting wide open.
Wrong. These tools (that have been available in many forms for ages in Photoshop and other packages) require patience and a lot of work. Set up different distance masks (very carefully and patiently) and increase blur progressively. That way you will have graduality. Yes, it is possible, and no, it is not a "quick fix".
> these kind of tools are only made for the big crowd that will never make a really good picture anyway.
Such arrogance rarely indicates greatness, so I looked at your site. You should not be throwing stones at others.
Nice selective quoting there. The full quote should be
"Everything you can do IN camera better do it IN camera."
I read it as: everything that can be done in camera should be done in camera.