thx1138: Just amazed at how bad these cameras are and they are the state of the art, Apple excepted. It's pretty sad to see P&S sales plummeting for this slop as it's not even close. Good enough for the crap posted on Facebook I guess. I see my smart phone camera as as use in case of emergency.
Well, it depends. If all you do is watching the images on your phone they are more (!) than good enough. I know quite a few people who watch their images mainly on the phone they were taken with.However when watching them on a FullHD TV the image literally melts away. Skin texture is almost non existent and night shots are a complete mess.
rxbot: I would like to know how yabokkie knows this lens is "not very good at tele-end" when there are not any photos on Sigmas own blog site or any other place I can find. Perhaps he/she could disclose their sources so we could see for ourselves.
There are images out there. It's just that some people have no idea what they are talking about. Especially the ones decrying things based on personal bias. A real mook, I'd say.
Price point will be its Achilles Heel.This lens is unprecedented and actually has no serious competition !! Now guess how that translates to the expected price point.My guess : $1700 to $2300. Which raises the question whether it really adds that much to a lens portfolio, especially if you already own the Nikon 17-50 2.8
gl2k: Interesting test, though pointless. Phone cameras are mainly used by persons not in the least interested in any kind of serious "photography". Any snap will be good enough.I personally know a few guys who even don't bother downloading their images from phone to PC. All they do is watching their photos on the phone screen. They would never ever care about 100% accurate sharpness, grain or whatever.Although I have to admit that it's quite a shame for a company like Sony to incorporate such a mediocre camera. If even Apple can do better, Sony should seriously consider some improvements.
@wetsleet The point is, Sony is a renowned camera maker with a good reputation and no matter whether users really "need" an above average camera or not, Sony should provide its phones with cameras that are able to vie with the elite of competitors. Even more since Sony charges quite a bit for its top notch phones. It's all about reputation.
Interesting test, though pointless. Phone cameras are mainly used by persons not in the least interested in any kind of serious "photography". Any snap will be good enough.I personally know a few guys who even don't bother downloading their images from phone to PC. All they do is watching their photos on the phone screen. They would never ever care about 100% accurate sharpness, grain or whatever.Although I have to admit that it's quite a shame for a company like Sony to incorporate such a mediocre camera. If even Apple can do better, Sony should seriously consider some improvements.
JaFO: One should note that the Xperia Z still works under water (*)Try doing that to its nearest competitor ... *bzzzt*
(*) provided it isn't sea water or anything else that isn't pure H2O
NO IT DOESN'T !!!Submerged, the phone doesn't recognize input any more. Therefore, no picture taking under water. You can activate movies before diving though.
Elaborate review of GH3.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KnFlRfhw8s
Absolutely no reason to upgrade from 4 to 5. Distortion control is nice but not enough.
While not really an inexpensive model it's though the most basic entry level cam. But its high iso capabilities are quite impressive. Even ISO 6400 images are highly usable for the targeted clientele.
ArcaSwiss: Canon is going nowhere innovation wise. Wonder if its a pause or a new modus operandi
That makes them a perfect competitor for Nikon. Nikon is stale and pale as well regarding DSLR technology.
If you want ultimate sharpness that beast is for you. Impressive !!!But the "slow" lens and no VF bother me. The most devious & deceptive camera is the Fuji with its highly cooked RAW files.The ultimate letdown is the Sony delivering nothing that would justify its price point.
RAW software is massively underrated !!!Back in the old film days it was the process of skilled film development that made the difference and today it is the skilled use of proper RAW software that makes the difference.That being said, it is the combination of sensor output + RAW sw that is responsible for the final image and therefore has to be judged.
"The Emperors New Clothes"I've been told that it is superior therefore I do perceive its superiority.It simply has to be better because it is promulgated by the pundits in this forum.ha ha ha ... guys you made my day. Thanks.
With regard to D800 vs D800E this is hilarious !!Nice evidence that D800E is the ultimate rip-off for would-be pros. Much reminds me of "Emperors New Clothes".
With stupidity the gods themselves struggle in vain.
gl2k: I downloaded and installed the 7.4 DNG converter. Everything went fine except ... CS6 still shows me Camera RAW 7.3The new converter is properly installed since I can launch it.Any ideas or did I get anything wrong ?
CS6 Camera RAW update went fine this morning. It was obviously just a matter of time when the update became available on a server dedicated to my region.
Fence image (DSC_0127) shows that there is pretty much DOF. More than I would like to see. I credit this to the APS-C sensor and f2.8 aperture.Most of the sample images could be taken with any P&S as well. If this camera style is what I like I would rather buy a V1. Dirt cheap and gives me the same shooting experience.
I found this statement on Adobe webpage.
Camera Raw 7.4 – Please use the update mechanism in Photoshop CS6DNG Converter 7.4 - Windows, Mac
I downloaded and installed the 7.4 DNG converter. Everything went fine except ... CS6 still shows me Camera RAW 7.3The new converter is properly installed since I can launch it.Any ideas or did I get anything wrong ?
Photato: Without mini lenses is kind of pointless the effort to make it small.Would have been nice to have a 22mm pancake to go with this, like the EOS-M has.The only really small lens, the 40mm pancake, doesn't cut it for the EF-S bodies like this one for general photography.
Too bad Canon decided to remain stagnant with the sensor. I was expecting them to start moving towards larger pixels.
It's a small body because most amateur photogs prefer something small despite it makes no sense for the reason you mentioned.The same statement is valid for many mirrorless systems as well. Small body + standard size lens = makes no sense.
But if it sells well ... who cares.
Despite its size it's still a DSLR. And an expensive one as well.Will buyers looking for something compact really pick the SL1 over a mirrorless system ? I doubt so. A camera that looks like a DSLR is appealing to certain customers but deterrent to many others.