neo_nights: @ Lars "there simply is not enough space unless consumers accept larger/thicker phones."This is right, but I still don't get this obsession with paper thin smartphones. They are increasing screensize and getting thinner and thinner. Then people complain that they are fragile (obviously!) and battery life is poor (obviously).
I mean, does 2~4mm of extra thickness make THAT much difference for the public?
Yes, I have evidence - the Moto G, a best seller, and not thin. Ergo being not-thin is no bar to sales success.
You choose to exclude that evidence.
The simplest interpretation of the evidence is that where compelling phones are offered, even if they are not thin, they sell well. However there are no compelling premium phones that are not thin, hence premium phone buyers have no choice to exercise.
"Consumers who buy a phone in the Moto G class are certainly much less worried about thinness than iPhone or Moto X users."
Certainly? How do you know? There is no choice, therefore no evidence. If you want a high-end phone then it is stupid-thin, that is it, no choice.
You conveniently dismiss the only data there is on consumers' actual choices. How do you know that given the same choice people who buy high-end phones would not have the same tolerance, preference even, for the benefits offered by a couple of extra millimeters?
The Moto G isn't especially thin, and yet consumers have "accepted" it in their droves. The whole thin thing is not consumer pull, it is marketing push.
The 'obsession' lies with the marketing depts, not the buying public, who are given no choice in the matter for premium phones, and where they are given the choice, as with the Moto G, clearly show that they do not obsess about thin.
Eleson: A review site that can perform repetitive AF testing in various conditions will get lots of clicks!Testing on DR and noise really makes very little sense right now, except to differentiate iPhone's from FF dslr's.
Testing of AF would also drive the industry forward a lot. Much as noise comparisons have done before.
"Weight (with battery) D810 880 g (1.9 lb.)" (table on P1)In the D810 review the weight including battery is 980g. Did something change?
stevez: I'm really enjoying these superb videos you're producing. Keep it up.
"...your knowledge and pleasant delivery is a cut above the other video reviewers out there..."+1
Samuel Dilworth: The stabilisation is cool – and the clearest indicator yet that Canon or Nikon will soon enter full-frame mirrorless – but it is a shame to see the smart, spare, beautiful Sony design slowly but surely morph into ‘ugly black blob’ territory. That grip is poor, and there was no need to move the shutter-release button. Its new location makes triggering it with your thumb in portrait orientation harder, just like with modern SLRs.
Next up: slouched shoulders and a rounded faux prism housing? Just 700 g!
+1 Samuel. Why are DSLRs forever designed against a functional spec optimised for (and constrained by) decades old analogue, mechanical considerations? Even the idea of "full frame" (implying that anything else is somehow lacking) is predicated on the constraints and compromises of film technology.Whenever I see a faux-pentaprism, I ask myself the same questions.
Sony are building a whole new system here, no legacy lenses, nothing to hold them back. How come a geometry which happened to suit wet-film technology somehow is the ideal for a digital sensor? How come a body shape dictated by the need to house a pentaprism, a film canister and a take-up spool is the ideal for a camera with none of those obligations?
MayaTlab0: Do we have any technical information explaining why, with FE OSS lenses, the lens will take care of pitch and yaw instead of the sensor ? Is it related to the range of correction possible in lens vs. in body or to the sensor heating up, for example ?Because, to me, although I can only congratulate Sony for adding IBIS on a FF mirrorless camera (and continue to despise their designers for not realising that their auto ISO implementation is subpar), it seems that it's again an example of Sony's "every six months, I want to do something new". Indeed, what's the point of developing stabilised lenses (which might possibly be a little more expensive, heavier, and harder to manufacture to a certain tolerance), if they already knew that they were going to release a stabilised body ? As far as I understand, but I may be mistaken, stabilised lenses still have an advantage in terms of correction range for certain axes, but that's mostly at the telephoto end, not the wide end.
For the same physical shake, the longer the focal length of the lens the greater will be the displacement of the image across the sensor due to the shake. In other words, an in camera system would have to be able to shift the sensor across ever greater distances to compensate for camera shake with longer lenses.
The in lens stabilisation can be tailored to the focal lenth of the lens. Indeed, I would think that the ray deflection in the lens due to the movement of the stabilisation group would in any case be amplified as a function of the lens' focal length, so inherently the degree deflection is increased by the increasing focal length of the lens anyway.
An in-lens system can not compensate for roll, that can only be done by rotating the sensor.
Anadrol: Too bad that it's doesn't support UHS-II...Also surprising that it weights nearly 150g more !
"Magnesium alloy reduces weight compared to plastic"
Are you sure? I know it reduces weight (for equivalent strength) compared to baser metals, like steel. But compared to polycarbonate? Honestly, I'm not sure, I'd like to know.
Earthlight: Sony and Sigma have managed to pull off someting quite lovely. They are a breath of fresh air in this market.
Sigma needs to start cranking lenses out for the Sony mount. Would that not be a win-win scenario?
Thanks John, that is what I had assumed. So once you have added the adaptor, you have all the encumbrance of an SLR, without any of the benefits of a mirror. Seems daft to me. If the game can't be played without the adaptor, is it worth playing?Maybe, just maybe, with some of those very rare SLR lenses which required mirror lock-up due to protruding rear elements, but how many are there?
Out of curiosity, these lens mount adaptors, do they basically amount to replacing the missing mirror box, to get the flange distance back up to what it would be if the mirror box were still there?
rsf3127: Very nice upgrade from Sony.
But I believe Sony should listen more to their customer base in order to become a major player in the upper bracket of the photographic equipment market.
Why doesn't Sony show some respect for the A7 owners delivering a nice firmware update along with the new model? That would be awesome!
There are a few things that I would like to have. For instance: if I set Clear Zoom, I want it to become fixed if I turn on and off the camera, unless I change it again. That would be very easy in a future firmware.
I would also like to be able to set MF magnification in a single click of a button. Nowadays, it is a double click process (it was better in the NEXes).
Stabilized primes would also be a plus, even if the new bodies will have IS. That would show respect for early adopters of their FF mirrorless bodies.
I could not care less for the apps that where the main focus of the last firmware, although they may be of some importance for some user.
accommodate: maybe a better word would be counteract or stabilise?It is not marketing "insisting" that OSS is the better (as in, more capable) technology for pitch and yaw.But a little thought might convince you of the geometry. The longer the focal length of a lens, the greater will be the displacement of the image across the sensor for the same amount of pitch/yaw angular displacement. So an in-camera solution needs to be able to displace the sensor ever greater distances as focal length increases. One size can not suit all.
OSS will not suffer the same problem, since the amplitude of the light ray deflection by the OSS system will in any case be a function of the focal length
Surely it implies that pitch and yaw are better accommodated by OSS, and that the other three axes (roll, x, and y) are better accommodated by IBIS. Otherwise why would they bother using OSS when available - if IBIS were better they would just ignore the availability of OSS in the lens (I don't even see how roll could be accommodated by OSS, for example).
buitenkunst: First thing I notice is that its a camera for right handed people, like most camera's. This is pretty awkward for left handed people wanting to shoot holding it with one hand.
First thing I notice is that its a camera for right-EYED people (like most cameras)! Try using your wrong eye - I find that even worse than the wrong hand. So I just have to put up with my thumb in my face and my nose squashed against the screen, greasy marks, etc.
Scottelly: What a load of crap! Marketing lies! Calling this camera a 360 degree camera is a lie and should be illegal. It is a 180 degree camera. That is all.
THIS is a 360 degree camera:
So is THIS:
Here is true 360 degree video:
This Kodak camera is nothing but a GoPro wannabe with a 180 degree fisheye lens. I can't believe you people who argue that they are valid in calling this thing a 360 degree camera. That's a load of balderdash, and YOU KNOW IT!
To be fair, it must be difficult for the marketing people to communicate with a mathematically illiterate public (and that is assuming the marketing people even know the difference).
So if they told the truth and announced a two Pi steradian field of view, would that help? No. So they are left trying to communicate a 3D reality using a 2D measurement system. Inevitably people will have different interpretations of how to translate that.
Perhaps they should just have said a hemispherical field of view, and ditched ideas of angle altogether.
Tungsten Nordstein: An extreme 360 degrees? Is that 361 degrees or perhaps even greater?
maybe a simple comma would help?"an extreme, 360 degree angle"Rather than further qualifying the 360 degrees itself as an extreme variety of 360 degrees, the angle of view is characterised as both extreme and 360 degrees, which is to say that in this application 360 degrees is considered extreme.
mmarian: I am not sure why they call it 360 when the lens in fact covers 180 deg of view. Are they all in marketing department at Kodak stupid and do not know the difference between 180 and 360 degrees view ??? This is a typical fish eye lens with 180 degree coverage, no more no less.
not radians, that is another variety of degrees to measure ordinary flat angle, with 2Pi radians to a full circle. Solid angle is measured in steradians. Google solid angle, there are some intelligible (and some not so) articles.
must be, a bit like all those phones billed as having a large 5 inch display :)
Felix E Klee: Seems like Kodak got lucky with the licensee, whereas what happened to the Rollei brand is kind of sad.
Kodak, yes, pioneered digital photography. Then, in a stroke of sheer stupidity, management confused metamorphosis with cannibalisation.
ThatCamFan: 360 degrees is physically impossible when it has only got a single lens.
No, you are thinking of 4Pi steradians (complete sphere in solid angle), not the same thing as 360 degrees.