WTF? I have the CM1 (Amazon UK were doing a few daily deals for £399) and I like it, but without it being a phone too, why? Save some licensing costs? Not going to make it sell better.
Bought this last week as Amazon UK had it for £399 on the daily deal. Was interested last year but the high price put me off. So far, so good-ish.
The phone part, to get that out of the way, is a plain old Android 5.0.2 phone with no bloatware. I like it and it replaces my 3-year old Note 2.
The camera part is impressive for it's integration and there is a lot of control. The images get better the more work you put into understanding the settings. My main complaint is that not all settings can be saved, specifically sharpness and noise reduction always reset to zero when turning on to shoot or when changing modes. Both should be set to the real zero, which is -5. Many settings are not available when shooting RAW, which is fair, but as there is no official RAW editor - they recommend Silkypics (?) it's not all that.
I miss Qi wireless charging as the MicroUSB is behind a flap and annoying to plug in everytime.
There are no, zero, accessories available. Sadly.
* Don't forget, to these people *you* are not the customer. They mean the retailers. You and I are "end users". Our opinions are only slightly more important than something they step in on the street by accident.
Canon, you've got it wrong again.
I have had a CP510 for years and it's a great little printer. When the media cost was low and online 6x4 prints costs about the same it was a nice idea. Since then the price of online prints (or booths in some shops) had dramatically dropped and the media for Selphys have skyrocketed it's become less of a value proposition *unless* you are isolated in a field somewhere. Then add the extremely poor Canon support for updating drivers and you have an even poorer proposition.
Now the CP1000 without WiFi for more than the CP910 which does it with only CF card support as an addition? I'm confused by who they are taregtting...
Mike FL: What's the average cost for a 4"x6" print?
Not for my CP510 - the ink and paper were always perfectly matched up (except for a couple of instances where I interrupted things, my bad)
You guys are seriously behind the curve here. The Galaxy K Zoom has been out some time, as a successor to the S4 Zoom, and gets no mention in the comparisons. No mention of then the reviewed camera was released etc.
Poor poor showing.
Patent greed. Who knows if BPG will be different?Doubt it, since it contains a reference to a "H" codec, all of which are a recipe for patent hell.
GreenMountainGirl: What are "cross-type AF points"?
I have a couple of older Manfrotto carbon tripods (443, 444 - the first belongs to a friend but I am storing it) and the similar vintage monopod. The carbon components are great and overall very light but the whole thing is still let down by the need to have a metal head that outweighes the rest of the ensemble.
I have tried a variety of ball heads and also a 3 axis video head type thing and in all cases they are the (weight) problem.
Adrian Harris: SAFETY (or lack of it) is the one word that springs to mind. I would like drones only to be legal if they have propeller guards fitted.
Spinning props make a nasty mess of the face. I can not believe that companies sell drones without them. I hope the manufacturers of 'guardless' ones do get sued.
PS. I am all for drones, they are a great idea, but choose safety, else all sorts of stupid laws will be forced on us (as if we haven't got enough restrictive laws as it is.).
I can only speak of my experience of the Parrot, which I've owned for about a year but not flown as much as I want, and it has very soft plastic rotors that are mostly harmless *and* the motors cut out when the drone detects any impact to any rotor.
I have hit my own skin without any visible impact apart from a slight "slap". I would probably not want to be hit in a soft spot like an eye, but I am not willing to experiment anyway.
Overall, it's safe - even if I have serious doubts over the company's ability to release software the hardware is safe to use.
Peter Galbavy: Still no white balance settings - which are rather important.
I have and I still do. While not my real camera I do occasionally use my phone and tablet for random shots. Editing kills what little JPEG quality is there already.
AWB is defeated by indoor and backlit scenes quite easily.
Still no white balance settings - which are rather important.
Peter Galbavy: Erm, much as I dislike the Eye-Fi card for it's poor support and lack of stated confidentiality (for their mandatory upload-to-cloud-to-auto-share), once it's working it's good. I shoot, WiFi Direct to my tablet, select images and upload. If I wanted to I could also edit but I don't generally.
This is nothing more than a bit of ego-massaging PR. No innovation here. Move along.
Published where? This puff piece is promoting some sort of gosh-wow "backpack", perhaps testing the waters to see if they have a spin off opportunity, when all it is is a change in process. There is nothing here but a workflow, like you say.
Erm, much as I dislike the Eye-Fi card for it's poor support and lack of stated confidentiality (for their mandatory upload-to-cloud-to-auto-share), once it's working it's good. I shoot, WiFi Direct to my tablet, select images and upload. If I wanted to I could also edit but I don't generally.
Android is making it into "real" cameras now so this is to be expected. Look at the Samsung etc.
Has anyone in the EU - and not the US - done a proper analysis of the likelyhood of any of these changes being allowed? Data protection laws actually exist in the EU and while Facebook may claim to be a US business and so only subject to US laws (this was very recently, probably in conjunction with this change) I don't believe the lawyers will see it that way.
Don't forget DPReview is owned by one of the other big, evil, data sucking giants - Amazon.
DaytonR: Very informative review :)
I wish the review had included the E Z share card & the Toshiba`s Flash air card ....
I thought Toshiba got delayed with Eye-Fi patent issues? Is the EZShare card the SanDisk one? If so, it's just a re-badged Eye-Fi.
Peter Galbavy: Eye-Fi as a company are VERY quiet about the safety and security of the images that are relayed via their servers. There is a direct transfer mode but except in a studio setting this is pretty much useless and all the useful features are via their systems.
The problems, and a quick read of their forums shows the lack of interest by the company - or perhaps the lack or response to prevent bad press?, shows a disregard to legitimate concerns over storage and secure deletion of data, long term security of functionality if the company decides to go bust (I am being sarcastic) and many other associated issues.
Oh, and the limitation that *even* if you trust, as you must, their cloud service it will only push to a single sharing service at a time. No upload to FB/G+/etc. for the same shot - no, that would be far too hard. Not.
PS While I own one, and paid a lot in the early days, I would *not* recommend and Eye-Fi to any new users. I am curious about the Transcend, but have no need right now.
martin_k13: What happens to the range when putting such a card in a magnesium alloy dslr body?
It works (my Eye Fi X2 Pro that is). I use mine in both my Canon 1DsIII and smaller, toy, Panasonic waterproof metal camera. It's functionally fine in both. I have not measured range, but in the house/garden it's fine.
Eye-Fi as a company are VERY quiet about the safety and security of the images that are relayed via their servers. There is a direct transfer mode but except in a studio setting this is pretty much useless and all the useful features are via their systems.