I enjoyed the review and, as a Moto X owner, thought you were thorough, accurate and fair in your assessment of the strengths and weaknesses.
I did want to point out, though, that I think you might have been a little bit harsher on the overexposure issues with the Moto X than you were in your Nexus 5 review. For example, look at your caption on page 6 of your Nexus 5 review: "In good light, the Nexus 5 delivers pleasant, balanced images." But the right half of the image is basically overexposed building. You were also a bit more apologetic for the Nexus 5 blowing highlights in the fruit stand still life, saying "Blown highlights remain a constant of mobile photography" rather than "With the Nexus 5, you can expect some blown highlights in high contrast scenes."
For any who read this, and are curious, overall I'm satisfied with the Moto X camera (having come from a Nexus 4 as my last phone). It's got weaknesses but overall it's not too shabby.
peevee1: Who cares, the review is at least half a year too late anyway.
DPR should wake up to the speed of technological development today. If it is not within 1 month after release, it is too late. And no amount of inconsequential details (like their 3-page menu guides for cameras) can save them - by the time you release it, it is just no more than a historical research paper.
Wow, cranky much? You know, no one is forcing you to read ancient reviews.
Elyharbour: I wonder what these votes really mean? Most will just end up voting for the one they bought (or lusted after). Doesn't make it the best. And how do any of us know whether the ones we didn't buy or try, are better or worse. Ah well, harmless enough I suppose...
I had the same thought! Agree - it's (probably) harmless fun, that will probably reflect camera sales volume more than anything.
Lightly boosted sat, contrast, and sharpening to allow comparison with straight OOC jpeg. This was shot through thick glass with maximum iZoom (Panasonic's optimized 2x digital zoom).
Untouched OOC jpeg
Slight fill light to OOC jpeg.
Used 2x iZoom (180mm equiv). Otherwise OOC jpeg.
Used 2x iZoom (180mm equiv).
Shot through thick glass and used 2x iZoom (180mm equiv).
ronmyers_us: In the past, I used Bibble Pro. When Bibble sold out to Correl, the name was changed to After Shot Pro. This software is availble for Windows, Mac and Linex. I like it because of the capability to make adjustments to selected areas independent of the rest of the picture. I have only compared it to the raw file processing addition to Photoshop Elements and find it much superior. In addition to allowing adjustments to selected areas, one can also clone and heal areas of the photo. It does not eliminate the need for editors (like Photoshop, Paint Shop Pro) to complete editing, but it does provide capabilities which I am unable to do after conversion to jpg or tiff format.
Also, the cost is less than any of these three programs. It would be great to see how this less expensive software compares to the higher priced software.
I've been using AfterShot Pro after trialing LR4 and Capture NX. I've found I personally prefer the AfterShot Pro RAW converter with my Nikon D5100 and D60 images. It's also quite a bit faster to load and process images on my 5-year old Dell laptop.
So I have to disagree with borgelite. I think it's a great piece of software (the others are pretty darn good, too).