Lan

You didn't work with Hasselblad on the Lunar project did you? ;)

Yes; because that's what the world needs, even more passwords...

This would make an excellent caption competition; if you have some freebies to give away!

"Two of the DPReview team see the bottom line as their Amazon.com share options mature."

"Video of a forum blowhard slipping on a banana skin is particularly funny as he claimed it was a hackneyed cliché that never happens in real life."

"Seasoned reviewers breathe a sigh of relief, as the Hasselblad Lunacy review is given to the newbie."

There's an outside chance that the softness *may* be camera shake related - is the shutter release control on the right hand side, and the camera module on the left?

The soft side appears to streak slightly in the direction I'd expect for rotational shake.

Does the IS include rotational correction, or is it just linear?

What you've basically debunked is Adobe's DNG format...

Too expensive!

"the processes can be more energy efficient"

Wording noted. Not "is", or even "will be", but "can be".

That said, at least they've managed to put together a prototype device; that's further along the development track than many get!

The interesting thing here is not the test patterns themselves, but the size of the smallest details on the recent test patterns.

There's little point in having detail on the charts if it's significantly smaller than the cameras can resolve, so the finer test pattersn hint at some pretty detailed capture.

If they're no longer flying drones/plances, it suggests the maximum detail available from the military satellites must be rather high. I guess we knew that anyway, as the GoogleEarth is unlikely to show the best resolution on offer.

Then again it could all be a double bluff, and they may just want us to think that. Don't forget to pick up your tinfoil hats on the way out folks ;)

I saw some Vertu phones on display recently in a high end department store, and thought they looked like cheap pre-paid phones. They really should look "sharper" than they do for the money...

More cutting edge, more different. That said, not the Hasselblad Lunacy different ;)

These things should make the iPhone look cheap, not the other way around.

Come on Vertu, where's the style?

Wake me when we get to the last roll of Velvia ;)

Jeff: Welcome to DPReview; I look forward to your contributions increasing when you join the team full time!

Another good review; but I'd like to see more about the camera from a programmer's perspective? This is what makes the camera (nearly) unique afterall!

Android means we can now program the camera, but I want to know how much we can change? How much of the camera functionality is exposed to developers?

For example: Can we access the RAW image from an app, and perform our own demosaicing, or is the image only ever presented to Android as a fully baked JPEG?

Can we program the lens focus via an app?

Now, I'll admit this is niche information, and maybe it's a better fit to a different site, but as a camera geek I want to know. I know there are many camera geeks here, so maybe they want to know too?

Any chance of a more in depth dig into the software/firmware guts of the beasty?

So, in summary, it's basically the 3CCD camcorder idea, but on a pixel level.

Not buying decent NiMH rechargables? #FAIL

I see your point about different names being better in different markets; but I can't see any *good* reason for the numbers to change as well.

If it's an Ixus 800, it should be an Elph 800 elsewhere, and a hypothetical PanGalacticGargleblaster800 where appropriate... I know they've somewhat painted themselves into a corner with numbers by this point, but...

They should just do an Apple: CanPro, CanZoom, and CanPocket - then just make an increment to the model number for the brand, i.e. CanTiny 2 is the second model of the tiny camera.

Having a million slightly different products doesn't benefit anyone.

Customer walks into a shop, do I want the 720, the 249, the 978, or the 202? Sales assistant shrugs, and says "that one's on special".

Most customers want a simple easy to understand product range.

Most retailers want to sell a few clearly different products, not stock a million different barely different ones.

It's cheaper to manufacture two cameras than fifty too...

The interesting detail in the article (for me) is that this is apparently using sensor shift stabilization. I don't remember seeing that in a Canon camera before - so far they've (always?) used lens based stabilization.

What I'm waiting for is a combined lens based and sensor shift stabilization system that works together. Pentax/Olympus with a Panasonic OIS doesn't count, as they either use one or the other, but not both.

My New Year's resolution is the same as last year: 1920x1200.

Although if I'm lucky I might hit 2560x1440 in a month or two ;)

Questions to DxO:

1) How do you source your lenses for testing?

2) On average, how many copies of a lens do you test?

@Nerval: I suspect the reason neither camera is supported is that they're not based on the standard Bayer filter (read wiki).

Unlike 99% of the other cameras on the market, Fuji use their own CFA pattern. The good news is that it doesn't produce Moiré in any appreciable way, and it increases luminance detail when compared to a camera with an AA filter (because you don't need one) - unfortunately the major drawback is that it seems to damage the colour resolution.

If you're shooting weddings or architectural shots the Fuji CFA may be a benefit; if you're shooting anything with fine colour detail it's really not a good idea...

The CFA choice makes a significant difference to the way you need to convert the RAW files into a conventional image. So, if you've spent a long time working on Bayer conversion routines, you'll need to start again to use the Fuji sensor layout - it requires significantly different processing.

Erin: To be honest I haven't really tried much else, as I have my 5D2 with me when I'm doing "serious" photography. I have used my B&W Kaesemann by holding it over the front of the cameraphone, but it's even more prone to camera shake then.

The 808 only really comes into play when I'm not carrying my camera kit around, and that means I'm not likely to be carrying much other than the phone and the lenscap/case it's in.

I'm not entirely convinced that a polarizer is that useful on a cameraphone anyway; the contrast boost can be problematic with the limited dynamic range available...

I'd give them a 1-star (can I give it a zero?) review myself; I bought the Jelly Lens polarizing filter and mine wasn't great - plastic, cheap, slightly bent, polarizer already scratched when new in the packet. Then, as you say, they simply fall off.

Mine was a perfect fail in that it wasn't quite bad enough to give an interesting effect, but wasn't good enough to be useful either.

Good idea; bad product IMO.