Hey, DPReview, was this shot raw? Because colour and noise aint good. (Yep, I've used a D4). Yes I saw the note about no noise reduction, but who cares? Looks like a jpeg.
aaaja: looks uuugly... i mean the lens... but it is a tool and some have to work with ugly tools, some wth pretty ones ... ;-) In tis days i would assume things could be designed differently? i do agree - i have no clue of what it takes to 'inner' design a lense...
the pictures are just the way they are... not much magic in them. maybe because of high iso? maybe because it was just some test shots.
maybe the fun and the elegance in 'olympic' sport is gone... only pain, and suffering?
Get back to me when those "watching and predicting" shots could readily be printed at say 12" by 18".
jon404: Could've just jumped in the pool with a little Olympus TG-1. For that matter, why not just put small cameras in the swimmers' caps?
JohnyP: Really.... a watermark in the center of all images?
Anyone wants to steal and sell the image above to an art gallery? I bet it will fetch big money....
There are photographers who don't want the images republished without compensation and/or credit.
(Say like the second biggest deal US newspaper.)
CameraLabTester: The Olympic actions are so predictable. Too easy.
The lens should have more challenge.
"frolic"? Get out of the lab.
Joe Ogiba: One huge advantage cameras have over the Nokia 808 is you don't need a 2 year contract with monthly data fees like here in the US with Verizon and others. Put the 808 camera in a Verizon feature phone like my Verizon Kin Twom with 8mp /720p camera and I would get it.
$500 bucks will do for a much better camera. $400 will buy you a camera with real manual and raw--better.
HowaboutRAW: The "exposure" response doesn't really explain why there's no manual exposure.
Yes, I'll admit that I'm going sort of by claims made in these forums. I don't have access to internal Nokia marketing plans.
But remember: More than one poster has said this 808 is better than the Canon 5D MkIII (sad really they can't get good images out of those Canon dslrs is all I can conclude) . And many have gone on about better image quality than micro four thirds cameras and the Nikon 1 series.
Given that the LX5 shoots raw and manual and is useable through ISO 1000, oh and does good video, I don't think there's any real technical competition. Sales competition on the other hand...
Not so familiar with what the S95 can do well or not, but of course raw and real manual control are a big deal there too.
vlad0: are we still comparing it against DSLRs and high end compacts that were all made with a single purpose in mind, and that is to take pictures ? Well .. that speaks volumes for the product...
The 808 created its own category, and it should be looked as a ratio between size/functionality vs. picture quality. Show me anything else on the market, that can produce that kind of quality/flexibility, in such a small package. The sensor module in the 808 is wayyy smaller than anything that comes even close in terms of quality.. I am not even going to mention the optics, because that is another masterpiece from Zeiss, which deserves a lot of credit.
The Nokia 808 is horrible at high ISOs, and the RX100 isn't really useable above ISO 1600.
There's no need to introduce the large and expensive D800 as the only alternative to the Sony or the Nokia. (Also the D700 still way out performs the D800 in lowlight.)
Why then when $650 would get one a much better camera?
Ben O Connor: THIS IS THE KILLER DEVICE FOR 1,7" & SMALLER SENSOR SIZE P&S CAMERAS. NO ARGUE AT ALL !
Congratulations to Nokia. hmm and lets think about future some..
New Nokia 809:
Made screen fliping up and down (as in NEX-5n or E-PL3) and add all the photographical control buttons on keyboard , which locates beneath the screen. ;)
Hard to believe that it will kill the sales of P&S cameras that shoot raw and can shoot PASM.
As for jpeg only, all auto, P&S cameras there's a huge price advantage for those cameras.
Okay, thank you for the response, but I often shoot actual manual with my digital camera; that's both the aperture and shutter speed set by me. Not one set (or modified with an ND filter) then the other set by the camera's exposure computer. These settings would be aperture priority and/or shutter priority--not manual.
This camera is set to compete with things like the LX5 and S95, so manual needs to be an option. And as my screen name suggests, the raw data needs to be recorded and available for me to work with.
Suave: It can give better quality than 5d3, it won't negate the fact that it runs on stillborn OS.
Don't you know that high pixel counts are all that matter---not.
The "exposure" response doesn't really explain why there's no manual exposure.
justmeMN: A vital performance question is AF speed. If that's unacceptable, nothing else matters.
Really would that be all dslrs, like the Nikon D3s? Unlikely.
That pro Canon you cite doesn't have a great reputation for AF speed, nice, in a bad way, to see that weakness confirmed.
I believe Canon has fixed the AF problems with that latest 1D X.
HowaboutRAW: Dear DPReview, the Leica M8 and the Epson R-D1 predate the introduction of whatever y'all are calling the first interchangeable lens mirrorless, and that Epson by a lot.
The problem was DPReview calling Panasonic "first".
Surprised no one has pointed out in all of these refinements that there were interchangeable lens mirrorless video cameras years ago, so whichever one of those was first to capture stills was also a first mirrorless.
But no, Leica and Epson were there first digital still camera makers (Epson modified an already existing rangefinder body). Now I am not making claims about the high or low quality of the images or sensors in those cameras.
Um, no the terminology has not moved on. A (the) major US retailer is calling the M9 mirrorless.
What you're perfectly right to point out is that the first Panasonic mirrorless was the first mirrorless interchangeable lens still camera with an LCD live view screen; that refinement in no way makes Panasonic the first to ship a mirrorless interchangeable lens still photo system.
Xellz: Still no real competition to m4/3, they can relax and take it easy. Especially early reviews tell, that Canon M is slow as a turtle. Would be nice, if m4/3 had to push a bit more quality of sensors used.
Which real review says the Canon is as slow as turtle? Aint in the DPReview preview.
Dear DPReview, the Leica M8 and the Epson R-D1 predate the introduction of whatever y'all are calling the first interchangeable lens mirrorless, and that Epson by a lot.
huh? Noise, ease of handling, buffer speed, lens quality, those things don't matter or are completely trumped by AF speed.
Ever hear of using manual focus? Or prefocusing, or just a purely manual focus camera?
justmeMN: As expected, it's an entry-level mirrorless camera, so it's no surprise that it doesn't have an EVF, and it's no surprise that it doesn't have enthusiast external controls.
In the future, Canon will release an enthusiast-level mirrorless camera.
Where are you getting this Canon mirrorless with adapter AF performance information?