bill hansen: "Shutter lag" (focus acquisition speed, plus a couple of other things) has always prevented me from using my smartphone for photography. With my Droid, lag is unbearable, as much as 2-3 seconds. But lag doesn't seem to bother others, and it isn't specifically addressed in this review of the Note 4.
Can anyone comment? Things like "it's very fast" aren't helpful, because so many people are happy photographing static subjects. "Less than 0.5 second" or "less than 0,1 second" would be very helpful, if accurate.
the main irritation is that the shutter sound is not at the instant of image capture, often the sound lags the capture by a good margin, which is disconcerting.
PazinBoise: Sadly many of the D5500s (or their Canon equivalents) I see on the sidelines at parks have their flashes popped up or are being used in live view mode which tells me that the shooters haven't invested the time to learn how to use their equipment in an optimal fashion.
What I don't get is why these cameras, presumably all set to "Intelligent" Auto, have not the intelligence to suppress their flash when the lens is focussing at infinity and the "intelligent" scene info gathered is not indicating any foreground. Which idiot did the algorithms?
Richard Murdey: "Having used cameras like the Nikon 1 J5, that can fire off full-res bursts with continuous AF and no black out, I was really expecting more out of the RX10 II."
Can you print that out and pin it to the wall of dpreview offices?
Every camera you review should be brought to a soccer game and tested like that. Every. Single. Camera.
I went to see an exhibition by my local photography club. Fantastic technical quality, etc, and quite artsy and well composed too. But every shot (bar one) was of a static scene, could have been done on a wooden tripoded glass plate camera. A bit sad I thought, no action, no movement. They captured a scene in space rather than a moment in time.
FuhTeng: Very cool. What neat tools. I like this quote:
"“In order to achieve the quality of video produced by Zenmuse X5 and X5R, pilots used to have to spend many thousands of dollars for large, complicated aerial equipment,” said Frank Wang, DJI CEO and Founder."
$4,500 and $8,000 ARE many thousands of dollars! But still, they're a tiny fraction of what an equivalent helicopter system would cost for a shoot. I still think it's funny.
So now everything has changed. You have to sepnd "many thousands of dollars" on small, simple aerial equipment. That's progress, no? :)
jwang88: is it possible to just purchase the camera and use it handheld?
sure, and you you can use your Nikonos on dry land.
justmeMN: The most important issue: Why is it "Kneekon" in the UK, and "Neyekon" in the USA. :-)
I thought it was NickOn
Miki Nemeth: I used to be a Sony fanboy, I still use Sony cameras, but I've switched to Samsung Galaxy Note 4/Edge just because of S-Pen. I'd expect active/digital/Wacom pen-support from such a beast.
Yeah, it is a design flaw, like selecting second gear in your car at 70mph is a design flaw.
From multiple Psions, through several HP PDAs, and a couple of Samsung Notes, I've never thought to jam the stylus in backwards. Neither have I sent the engine's valves through my car bonnet.
"...no camera maker has gone back to a blank piece of paper..."So true. We still seem to have a film chamber with space for the cannister and take-up spool, the pentaprism housing, etc. We still squash our face (or nose, if you are left-eyed) against the body as we contort to hold the viewfinder to our eye. And don't get me going on the auto-aggrandising term "full-frame"!
DougSchuch: Speaking of logic; glass is HEAVY. A backpack of average size or larger needs a padded waist strap so the weight can be transferred to the hips. It doesn't take much hiking with camera and lenses to start the shoulders aching, without one.
Yup. That much weight pressing down on your shoulders, and down every vertebra and disc. You'd have to be nuts! Why no hip belt? Madness.
onlooker: Wait, this thing is nearly 100g heavier than G7? What is this obsession of camera manufacturers with making ergonomically-sized cameras unnecessarily heavy? Why, do they think we wouldn't buy it if it didn't weight our jacket down like a brick in the pocket? Plastic is your friend. Quit this pretense that one is buying a camera for life. Digital cameras are have a built-in obsolescence, and the plastic body will certainly outlast the rest.
I think magnesium alloy gained its spurs before the current alternatives were available. I'd love to know which performs better for equivalent mass - magnesium alloy or a modern polycarbonate/composite alternative.I know metal has that 'premium' cachet about it, same in the mobile phone arena, but I'm really keen to know which material would win in a dispassionate functional contest.
daddyo: Wow, what was Panasonic thinking? This 'behemoth' weighs a whopping 3 oz. more than the GX7! That's almost 1/5 of a pound!I'm not sure I'd be able to lift it to my eye level -- especially with one of those huge micro four thirds lenses attached.
Back to reality, a small but legitimate problem I see is that the hot shoe is off-center from the lens axis (unlike the GX7 which is centered). This will result in slight side shadows when using a flash.
Other than that, it looks like a pretty nice camera -- pending in-depth reviews.
I've not seen it, but maybe the flash unit will have a compensating offset?
wetsleet: This is nuts. Even if the lighting effects on the Eiffel Tower, or a paricular building, are copyrighted, unless I produce a copy of those works then how am I infringing copyright?
A book is subject to copyright - if I take a photo of the book I have not infringed that copyright, because I have not copied the book.
A photo of a building is not an ediface, it is not a building, so it can't be a copy of a building. Whereas the house next door to mine is a copy, it was built from the same plan, and it is a house.
And does a photo of a lighting display really constitute a copy, in any meaningful sense? No, it is just a visual description, as a news report would be a written description.
I could understand that if I take a full-face photo of a copyrighted painting then just possibly I am in a very limited sense 'copying' the painting - the photo goes some way to fulfilling the utility of a painting.
So let them sue Las Vegas for *building* copies of other famous buildings - but photos?
reasons not to be allowed to take photos in museums and public buildings are often nothing to do with copyright. Flash damage to light-sensitive artefacts, public nuisance, protection of gift-shop post card sales, etc.
This is nuts. Even if the lighting effects on the Eiffel Tower, or a paricular building, are copyrighted, unless I produce a copy of those works then how am I infringing copyright?
"When buying from the big sellers like Amazon ... things are a bit more clear"
I disagree. At least with eBay you go in with your eyes open. On Amazon it's easy to be lulled into a false sense of security, trusting the Amazon name. Trouble is, often the same listing has multiple sellers, yet the review listing does not distinguish. You have to read between the lines to work out which reviews relate to seller A (selling the real thing) and which relate to seller Z.
For example, look at the Galaxy Note 4 (for which as well as multiple sellers per product listing, there are also multiple product listings - confused?). Some of the reviews give it one-star, lambasting it as a fake, others sing its praises. How are you supposed to know what you are buying - the reviews are not linked to the sellers. And don't get me started on replacement phone/camera batteries - it's just a lottery.
Amazon, which must know which review went with which supplier, does sweet FA to put its house in order.
steelhead3: Nice piece Rishi...Do you think with the BSI sensors, fast lenses will be able to use 1.4 or 1.8 light gathering? Right now there is no advantage in using fast lenses over 2.0 or 2.8 except for DOF purposes.
Rishi, is it fair to say the "light fall-off of fast lenses at corners" issue is exacerbated by exploiting the shorter flange distance available to mirrorless lens designers? And that unless the shorter flange distance is exploited by lens designers the lenses won't have any size/weight advantage over SLR lens designs?
wetsleet: Lots of comments about no EVF, and I'd tend to agree that a 'proper' viewfinder (i.e. not a display screen) is an essential part of any camera. However, every time I look through one in the shops, it is like looking down a tunnel with a little window at the far end.Are there any decent ones out there? By which I mean, about what I used to get in the days of film SLRs, say >70% magnification in 35mm SLR terms.
Slightly off topic, but every once in a while I pick up my old Nikon FE2 and hold it to one eye, hold my DSLR to the other and get the two images to overlap in my brain. It still shocks me how much more the FE2 "fills the eye" even than a D800.
Given that "seeing" the photo is fundamental to taking the photo, I'm upset by how easily we have given ground on this aspect of cameras.
Huge strides have been made since film photography, but we have sadly gone backwards in this fundamental area. I guess I'm amazed at how little lamented it is.
PS thanks for the replies on EVF sizes.
wetsleet: "pitch and yaw are corrected digitally"Are you sure? I'd have thought pitch and yaw were always corrected in the lens, with roll and orthogonal x and y shifts all done either by sensor shift or digitally.If Canon are doing pitch and yaw correction on the sensor, at 600mm, how do they do it?
Pitch and yaw are rotations, and at 600mm you will not need much rotation for the error to be of the order of the entire field of view. Think of hand holding a telescope, just keeping an object in the view is a challenge. So I don't see how that can be corrected other than by compensatory movements of lenses within the optical path.
The error generated by linear x and y movement will depend on the magnification ratio. Think how large one pixel would be painted onto the actual scene - you'd need to move the camera by that amount in the x or y direction before you saw a one pixel displacement on the sensor. So these can be more readily compensated in software (or sensor shift).Roll can not be corrected in the lens.
I'm sticking to stills photos here (like Eleson says).
Lots of comments about no EVF, and I'd tend to agree that a 'proper' viewfinder (i.e. not a display screen) is an essential part of any camera. However, every time I look through one in the shops, it is like looking down a tunnel with a little window at the far end.Are there any decent ones out there? By which I mean, about what I used to get in the days of film SLRs, say >70% magnification in 35mm SLR terms.
"pitch and yaw are corrected digitally"Are you sure? I'd have thought pitch and yaw were always corrected in the lens, with roll and orthogonal x and y shifts all done either by sensor shift or digitally.If Canon are doing pitch and yaw correction on the sensor, at 600mm, how do they do it?
Schuks, they already do this kind of resolution everyday on regular webcams over on CSI: Enhance that image, enhance, enhance, there - in the reflection, enhance - I know that face!