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.
So many of you are missing the whole point. You're ignoring the reason why people shoot photographs and video using an iPhone. The very reasons that make the iPhone the most popular camera that has ever been made (Based on the number of photos taken and uploaded online).
1. People have it with them most of the time.
2. It will do things that a DSLR / pocket camera can often only do with the aid of a computer (Life effects, realtime panoramic stitching, time-lapse, slow-motion etc).
I've shot video with my iPhone with the kids. Silly little clips, time-lapse of storm clouds, stop motion clips of toys moving etc. All without a tripod, so I wish I had a case like this to make my iPhone easier to use and most importantly more fun when it's used for these fun tasks.
BadScience: hmm, "without rich shadows, the images look flat".
That is true, so it's strange the photographer ignores his own advice.
The interior of the car - of the original exposures, the top left exposure looks better than the final HDR.
Ditto with the hotel in Havana. All trace of atmosphere has been lost by using HDR. Again, the original exposure is the best.
Although, these images do not have the overt tone mapped look to them, they still feel very artificial. I'd be very tempted to overlay the original exposure on top of the HDR and set the opacity to 90%. So there is just a hint of the extra dynamic range, without the plastic look.
If you want to acheive natural HDR images, you will know you have succeeded when people do not realise that the image is HDR. If this was the aim here, it has failed.
I think you're wrong. These examples demonstrate exposure bracketing / exposure blending at it's best, and that is how to capture a subject with high dynamic range and produce an image with a compressed dynamic range without rendering the entire image in that washed out / strange light / plastic HDR look.
When Canon doesn't upgrade the firmware a bunch of little forum kids scream, wail and bang at the bars of their cot.
When Canon does upgrade the firmware a bunch of little forum kids scream, wail and bang at the bars of their cot.
When a bunch of forum kids scream, wail etc you'll get another bunch of forum kids screaming and wailing about the first bunch of screaming, wailing kids.
And so it goes on... and on... and on...
Nothing ever really changes.
@forpetessake You just won troll post of the day! Well done, I hope you and that amazing P&S camera of yours are very happy at the win.
Karsten Dam: Fine. I just purchased Lightroom 3.6 a month ago in an Adobe shop and paid 150 euro. If I upgrade now I'll have paid double for v. 4.0 !!Phoned Adobe "customer service" a few minutes ago. No free upgrade for me. They were literally laughing at me.
I'll never buy any Adobe products more in my life.
If you knew 4.0 was coming out (You should have) then so what? You bought it and now have the option of upgrading.
If you didn't know that 4.0 was coming out and genuinely expected that 3.6 was going to be the final ever version of Lightroom Adobe would ever release... then stop bitching. v3.6 doesn't do anything less today than it did a month ago.
Sheesh it's a digital world, things get upgraded.
Also there's something wrong with your handling of the avatar images. My alpha transparency is fine in some places and off in others. Like on this page, it looks fine next to the "Post new message ..." field but the aliasing on the alpha is terrible next to each comment.
If you're going to change things, why make it worse?
(I'm off to remove my avatar)
Must have been done for political reasons (Amazon vs Gravatar?).
No other reason to remove it completely, if they wanted to improve the experience for us then they'd allow gravatar as well as a new system, at least during a migration period.
They could have continued to support gravatar until you changed your avatar image here on DPR.
They didn't because they wanted gravatar gone.
Ashley Pomeroy: That looks really good - it's grainy at ISO 800 but it's a nice grain, and the colours are still nice. Most other cameraphones would have blotchy purple streaks at that value. Imagine this kind of sensor scaled up!