cinemascope: RAW is nice, but what about something in between, say PNG?
The world needs to stop producing content exclusively and directly to a crappy lossy format such as JPEG.JPEG is for distribution... Internet... Sharing... That's it.JPEG is not for content production... Not for saving treasured memories...
I know phones are used for sharing, but many of its images do get stored for future appreciation too.How many new born babies these days have their first photo taken by a phone?Just create the crappy JPEG at the moment of sharing... Done!And keep the proper copy. Duh?
Sure RAW might be too complicated and overkill to most phone users... Not everyone will care to change WB later, or to keep the original bayer info intact.But it makes sense to use a proper demosaiced, non-lossy format for creation and storage.We are in the HD era, it's not 1990 anymore, why we keep recording to a crappy distribution format?
It's like recording a feature film directly to DVD or VHS...
new boyz is right: a musician would not use a cellphone in the first place!
Benarm: lipstick on a pig...
I'd rather have pig on a stick ;-)
noirdesir: This is welcome, though 16 bit is overkill. Take for example the Nikon P330 pixel of 1.8 μm size (most smartphone pixels are smaller than this) and it gets less than 12 stops of engineering dynamic range with a very flat read noise curve and a very high QE of 75% (possibly somewhat a calculation artefact). I haven't done the math but I would estimate that a 1 μm pixel with a QE of 100% and a read noise of zero wouldn't get more than 12 stops of DR.Add one bit for over-encoding, hey even two, and anything more than 14 bit is just encoding noise. And for real sensors with a QE of less than 100% and some read noise, a 12 bit encoding is very likely completely sufficient.
Sadly, consumers buy the item with the bigger figures...
Ah, that's good news!
Perry Kivolowitz: "Try to be very still" Enough said.
Same as smartphone-based "HDR"...
naththo: I suspect this is a pre-production photos. It is not a full review yet with proper sample yet. Just have some patience. Those pre production sample won't be as nice as a proper review sample. When the DPR gets chance to get fully produced camera to do the review. DPR will get proper pentax glass lens for the full review.
Yep, my K100D Super makes 3000*2000 jpgs and 3008*2008 RAWs.
@naththo try RAW and see how many pixels you get.
Kodachrome200: I hate that they are ignoring the ricoh gr for lens correction
Troll.Ricoh GR is a great camera....but you're obviously a nikon fanboy.
Fastastic pics, I concur.
Not too bad.There's not much detail in the nighttime photo of that fountain, but I'm impressed by the dynamic range: there are plenty of pictures that include buildings in the shadow + clear sky/clouds and I think it manages to cope well.
D1N0: It's about the flame, not the torch. Idiots!
Maybe they were looking at the finger...
"The torch will remain unlit "...There! I was wondering... :-D
LukeLT63: I do not understand why Tamron does not produce more new lens for Pentax. I wish I knew ....I'm sorry for my friends that use Pentax!
Is me (along with meself & I) wrong or we already have Q camera?Me senses lawsuit coming! :-DDD
Do you need to open the part with the rear lcd when you put the film in?
LensBeginner: Call me Mr. Grumpy, but I mainly see many oversaturated, overexposed and overprocessed photos...I like some, though, like Nos. 4-5-6-10.Not much else.
@Roland Karlssonwait... shouldn't the winner of the competition get... an award!? :-D We'll see who the winner will be
@b crawThanks for your kind words,I hope that you noticed the tone of my rebuttal, which was, I do believe - calm and self-controlled
7. If I had equally flattered every single gallery here then my praise would be devoided of significance.I'm happy to comment favourably on the many astounding photos and portfolios Dpreview regularly publishes (and those get much more comments than this one, go figure...), and give praise to those who, IMHO, rightfully deserve it.However, I'm sorry to say, that's not the case.
4. I take pictures as a hobby, and when one of my pictures has good composition, portrays an interesting subject, but I've been sloppy with, say, exposure or pp (RAW development, mainly), then I'm not happy with what I've done.I'm not a "pro", in the sense that I don't get a living out of it, but had I been up to similar quality standards in my job (which is not photography) I think I would have been fired immediately. There's a fierce competition in almost every field nowadays.
5. @: Are you then suggesting that professionals should only worry about subject and composition? That's beyond preposterous.
6. You say I should care about the content of those photos, not the form: well I admit I did not say that in the first place, but most of these are flat and unimaginative under this perspective as well. Hell, many of those don't even tell a story.(continues)
1. Are you implying that an amateur cannot criticise a professional, ever?What do you do when you see, say, a pro guitarist fumbling over the fingerboard with a super-distorted effect plugged in? Based on your post you are only allowed to gape in awe because he's the pro and you're the amateur.
2. I never suggested nor implied that I was able to take better photos than those guy here, however this seems to be one of the main targets of you're ridicule.
3. I'd like to point out that there are far better photos online, made by amateurs (on aviation/flightsim enthusiasts fora, or sites like Jetphotos, for instance), and these here are supposedly the best photos from the best photogs who work with RAF and have therefore access to some locations/events which are restricted to the general public (and therefore also to amateur photogs). (continues)
Call me Mr. Grumpy, but I mainly see many oversaturated, overexposed and overprocessed photos...I like some, though, like Nos. 4-5-6-10.Not much else.
carlos roncatti: finally, those fashion photographers now will shoot raw... :)if it takes the phone 2 to 3 seconds (?) to take another shot, how long once you shoot raw?
@HowaboutRAW in 1998 serious photogs stills shot film.P.S.: we're in 2013 now, just so you know ;-)