One of the examples has lens flare added in.
Oh dear, is this NASA or JJ Abrams?
nhaxuonghcm: how does software make generic hardware faster?
Because software is just a very long list of calculations that generic hardware has to perform. If you reduce the number of calculations needed to complete the same task you speed up the overall task. Most software isn't as optimised as it could be, so careful refactoring of code can often provide significant improvements.
Menneisyys: After installing it on one of my iPad2's, I've just finished installing iOS8 beta1 on one of my iPad 3's too.
There's no panorama support at all, meaning at least the iPad 2 and 3 will NOT be able to shoot panos. Which is kinda a letdown, given that the iPhone 4S, based on the same CPU and an even higher-Mpixel sensor (meaning more data to process) is capable of doing so.
The Air and the rMini do support panos (confirmed), on the other hand. Dunno about the iPad4 / Mini 1.
Separate focus & exposure setting works great and is much more intuitive than the previous two-square approach used by all AppStore apps + CameraTweak. (They couldn't have invented anything similar to the new swipe up/down method, anyway, given that in previous iOS versions the only way of separately setting the exposure was pointing the square to a subject area, not by directly "dialing in" a positive / negative exp. bias.)
"There's no panorama support at all, meaning at least the iPad 2 and 3 will NOT be able to shoot panos."
Yeah because Beta 1 is always 100% feature complete across all supported devices.
By your logic iOS 8 won't allow anyone to install iPhoto or post reviews to the app store.
When Apple announce which devices will get which features then come back and talk to us. But until then don't make such factual statements on areas that are clearly likely to be in flux. You're sounding like you're new to this whole beta thing.
"it's lucky that privately-owned SpaceX happens to own its own rockets".
But that's what SpaceX does! They make rockets!
You might have well have said "It's lucky that Intel make microchips" or "It's lucky that McDonalds sells food"
Wow, and there we were all thinking that this plastic piece of crap from China was actually a Nikon when it turns out it's just a travesty to the industry and another muddy splurge on what's left of 'Polaroid's' name.
Thankfully we have legal eagles saving us from the confusion of having a high quality camera and a rubbish piece of tat sharing the same body shape and colour.
Actually. Getting this camera off the market is the best think Nikon have done in ages! Not because it looks like a Nikon, just because it's awful!
So you either watch it live... or you can't watch it at all? Really??? That's the best you could do?
It's 2013 guys. Timeshiftimg, VOD, catch up TV - they're all 'a thing' now.
So bugs are phenomenons now?
Nobody seems to be mentioning that the 5S shots are much sharper than the 5 when examining the items in front of the main scene (EG Top left sponge, top right feather). When you look at the items at the 'back' (Such as all the focus charts) the 5S is softer.
So what we are seeing is a depth of field difference, or maybe some front focussing or maybe a poor selection of focus point.
Some of it 'could' be jpeg artefacts, or noise but I think the culprit is focus / dof.I don't think this one test image alone can conclude which 'is sharper'
Leandros S: In spite of everyone who has only half-read the descriptions, it is my belief that Barbara Cole's image ("I carefully manipulated the surface image to add dimension and introduce a painterly quality I loved.") is a painting done on top of a photograph. I don't think it qualifies for inclusion here. Many painters paint from photographs, are their paintings then photographs as well? I think not.
Agreed. She has taken a 'photograph' and then uses image manipulation techniques to make it look like a painting.
Does she deserver recognition? Yes.
Does this image deserve to be including in this category with these other largely non manipulated images? No.
All digital images have some degree of processing, but this has been manipulated to achieve the other-worldly look.
If this deserves to be included then so do all the OTT HDR images or even those applying paint filters via photoshop.
Funny, on my screen here I can't read the editorial paragraph where you expose Ben Lowy as being a Shill for this Johny-come-lately instagram clone.
DPR, we don't want your crappy "Advertorial" or "Sponsored Posts".
If you insist on doing them at least have the morals to put an 'Advertising Feature' headline on them... and if you won't do that then at least turn them into something useful not just stealth press releases like this poor excuse of an article.
And how is this a news article related to digital photography?
daMatrix: So they going to show other people images big. Some may object that their work is shown in review (not preview) size - out of context - in a diarrhea of whatever other images. No matter what kind of iptc info bla they put next to is, it s wrong.
Atleast I feel my work will be violated by Google... Because I took great care in presenting my photos in the right web environment. I took special care in the choise of photo combinations on my website, creating a balanced mood that enpowers all images. It is wong of Google to show the large photos in a mixer of trillion other photos choosen by a script..
Well it's really good that google will honour this decision of yours. Just prevent them from adding your site (or sections of your site) to their index.
This "MeCam" isn't a real product, or even a real prototype. Nowhere do they claim it's close to being ready.
They have no demonstration of their technology, no details on their technology or a shred of evidence that they have any technology at all.
Browse the "Always Innovating" website and you'll quickly realise this product will NEVER see the light of day from these people.
Read the white paper, it all makes sense.
Using nasty cheep glass would negatively offset any gains but let's assume metabones isn't out to hoodwink anyone with shoddy goods and won't be melting down coke bottles for their lens elements.
I'd be much happier if whoever is responsible for hosting on the dpreview sites sorts out the major capacity issues you have. The site is either:
A) FineB) SlowC) Insanely slowD) Spewing random errors at passers by
And it would seem that (D) is best buddies with (A),(B) and (C) as it's never far away.
jcmarfilph: Why do you have all the time to do review for a crippled camera wannabee like iPhone and then not do a review for superzoom cams that are already out for almost a year now?
You don't understand there being some merit in reviewing the most popular 'camera' available at this point in time? (Based on the Flickr figures)?
Maybe because to address misconceptions that phones are 'crippled wannabee' cameras?
An iPhone isn't a superzoom, in the same way a superzoom isn't an SLR with pro glass.
Get over it and stop asking for reviews on obsolete camera models in a segment of the industry that the is diminishing because through improvements in technology, camera phones are growing in popularity.