The Squire: Cool tech. Not photography by a long way but super thing imaging could be used in many places traditional cameras cannot. And, if used for machine-vision, absolute IQ is hardly a problem.
Of course, only makes sense if you can get the rest of the components down to a similar size - battery, storage et al...
Actually absolute IQ matters very little for me and you. We can figure out most anything with just a little vision. But for machines, IQ really is a big deal. They are not nearly smart enough yet to do without it in any critical operation.
JoEick: Cool thing to do for the users of the website. Thanks DPR staff for putting this together. There are many talented photographers here who deserve a bit of recognition for their hard work.
I didn't take any keeper photos in 2014, so it will be nice to see what others have done.
On this site, I find that many are willing to take moment to be rude.
Blackpond1: As a former Olympus OM-1/OM-4 user, I am immediately drawn to this camera. I waited a long time to get into digital. I started with an Olympus E-Volt 500 and was very disappointed. I later moved to the Canon T3i, which I have been very pleased with overall. This model has me considering going back to Olympus, however, I have a few hangups.
I love the flip out screen on the T3i, but I can live with the tilt screen on the E-M10. My hesitations are the low light performance and lack of audio input. I do a lot of low light photography of food in dark restaurants, and I am concerned with the performance of the Olympus at higher ISOs. The Canon does very well with this. I also do lots of video and use a Sennheiser wireless mic system, so the lack of audio input is a major bummer. I would have to have another camera to do video. As much as I want the cool features and compact size of the Olympus, after reading the full review, I am leaning towards upgrading to the Canon T5i. Thoughts anyone?
DXOMark's sensor evaluation says the e-M10 has a stronger high ISO capability compared to the Canon t5i.
ZAnton: Big size does not help if they compress everything with 10% quality. All my photos have "nice" lines and squares on the color gradients.
It is a year and a half later and the quality of Facebook high resolution photos is still horrible.
clicstudio: I love going to Live Rock concerts.I am extremely happy with my canon Powershot sx280 hs http://m.dpreview.com/products/canon/compacts/canon_sx280hsSometimes I am close to the stage and sometimes I'm not that lucky.The 20x zoom and the very usable ISO 3200 on this camera lets me capture amazing photos which I can instantly transfer to my iPhone 5 and upload to Facebook thanks to the built wi-fi.All of this for $299. An entry level DSLR with a 28-500 lens would be huge and over $1000 and would probably give me just a little better quality. I own a canon 1D X but of course I can't put it in my pocket.Sensor size is important, only if you are going to need it for printing. Most pocket cameras are more than sufficient for anything. And convenient too.
I must agree with Plastek's remark on ISO 3200 via the Powershot. Only to simply say I grabbed the image. Nothing more.
JDThomas: Im sorry, but I don't see these as "documentary" photographs. Aren't documentary photographs supposed to tell a story or chronicle some sort of event? There is no context to these photos. I wouldn't be able to tell if this was Sarajevo or Los Angeles.
These images are "OK", but nothing amazing. I see photos on Instagram everyday posted by amateurs who never picked up a "real" camera in their lives that are as good or better.
Agreed. But the reason he and others are 'celebrated' is because there is a billion dollar corporation doing the celebrating (through proxies of course).
This billion dollar corporation happens to make the phone being celebrated.
bdcolen: I cannot help but laugh at the breathless excitement over doing "serious" photography with an iPhone, with or without any gimmicky filters. Yes, of course, the best camera is the camera you have with you. But imagine for a moment that someone told this or any serious - photographer, 'no, don't take your state-of-the-art cameras with you on assignment; do your work with this crappy 2004 point-and-shoot." The response from anyone not looking for publicity for doing something weird, would be, 'are you out of your mind, mate?' (And well it should be.) Yet today we have serious photographers, including some leading photo journalists, doing assignments with crappy 2004 point-and-shoots called iPhones, making the resulting photos technically even worse by using gimmick filters and post processing add-ons that produce the look of badly processed, fadded, color films from the 1970s.
Camera of choice? Results to be celebrated? For anything other than art(sy fartsy) photography? Not really.
And media organizations that print advertisements for Apple are running stories with the photos done with iphones as yet another advertisement for Apple. They don't think the best photojournalistic effort is being produced with the iPhone. They simply are being paid to suggest that. And the beat goes on. It's capitalism.
Even as I read this I knew this wouldn't play well in this community.
peevee1: A little late, aren't they?
Has anyone seen the connections between two types of threads that consistently pop up here?
There is the thread where the hand to mouth photographer with a small business laments changes in the camera industry and in the society that are forcing him/her to do things he would not normally do, some of which seem shitty or unprincipled to some. Like providing cds instead of prints to customers. When this topic emerges what also emerges are legions of users offering the advice that it is the responsibility of said photographer to do whatever is necessary to remain attractive and relevant to a customer base.
The other scenario that consistently arises is related to this threads topic. A multibillion dollar firm will announce that it is doing something it surely should have been doing 6-9 months ago. Something interesting happens next. Out of the woodwork pop these users explaining how said company has no responsibility to do anything free for users. Even if it obviously is in the company's interest to satisfy it's customer base.
Anyone else notice the rank hypocrisy in thought regarding the behavior of small business owners and the largest firms in the world? Why do little guys always side against other little guys?
KodaChrome25: M&M is a Google plant. She alienated half of YaHoo's employees. She's now alienating YaHoo subscribers. She dropped over a bil on Tumblr. She'll parachute out with another big chunk-o-cash. Then she'll run for Gov of CA having destroyed YaHoo. Like Whitman with E-Bay and now HP. Like Fiorina with HP.
I said the same thing about M&M the day she was announced. Her job is to sink them.
itsastickup: Very boring article, but the NYtimes reader's comments below it are hilarious.
Those reader comments are geeks without lives.
Newsflash folks. This is capitalism. Yahoo, owner of Flickr, will always need higher profits and the best way in a post labor economy to do that is to reduce service and increase fees. Things can only go down.
I can't believe this day came so soon. The pirates and torrenters defeated a billion dollar company. Open source won.
Apple fans don't want to hear anything bad about Apple. True or not. And it's off topic anyhow. So can we keep our eye on the ball and ignore the Apple talk? Please.
I'm looking forward to seeing the speed of this software on tablets out in the world. That will tell the story.
Another tool to kill people faster. Cool.