hydrospanner: I'm seriously considering going to iPhone after 4 years with Android products, but this phone might keep me around for another contract. If it's waterproof, and there's definite specs out before my contract is up in December, I may well hold off until its release.
If it's not waterproof, though, I'll get an iPhone 6 in December.
Hey man, whatever floats your boat. You're obviously atypical and myopic.
If all you care about in a phone is RAW capture in the camera, just get a camera and be done with it.
If you want a useful tool, steer clear of Windows phones, and deal with the horrible agony of being reduced to JPEG output and no more 20x30 prints of your masterful cell phone art.
If the lack of RAW on an iPhone is a dealbreaker for you, then I take it you just don't own a phone then.
I feel pretty confident not valuing your opinion on such matters going forward, so thanks for clearing that up.
Again, a few might like it, but the majority have no use for it. It's likely just a feature that, for the market, doesn't add appreciably to their sales figures.
RAW on a smartphone is like having a towing hitch on a Mini: doesn't necessarily create a drawback, but if you're really going to make use of the feature, then the device it's attached to is far from ideal.
Obviously, from your name, RAW means more than just about anything else, but I don't think most of the rest of us will be losing any sleep over lack of RAW on a phone.
Yeah, I don't want or need RAW for my mobile photo needs. I just want to snap, edit, and share.
Same with the card slot. I never swapped them out when I had them, and when I got my current phone which didn't have a removable card, I was skeptical, but I haven't missed it at all, so that's a non-issue for me as well.
I'm seriously considering going to iPhone after 4 years with Android products, but this phone might keep me around for another contract. If it's waterproof, and there's definite specs out before my contract is up in December, I may well hold off until its release.
The Smoking Camera: I can only imagine how much better the IQ would be from those other mirrorless cameras if it got the shot I was able to with the V3.
Then I suppose the V3 is the industry leader in beehive photography.
Outside of that, though (and a few very specific other niches), the fps is at best a fringe benefit, that doesn't outweigh the cost/IQ ratio in any respect.
If you're relying on 20 vs 11fps to get your shot, i think it speaks to a fundamentally flawed approach to the photography itself.
Kipplemaster: Could DPReview please start listing lack of USB charging a a con rather than the current practice of listing "lack of included charger" as a con for cameras with have the advantage of USB charging. Particularly for cameras which might be used for travel, for those of use who are not fans of packing random proprietary massive plastic accessories USB charging is a major plus.
TIL that there are apparently real people out there who would rather plug their entire camera in and let it sit instead of just slapping a battery into a charger while they throw in a spare and keep shooting.
TylerQ: Still not signing up. Monthly fees for software? No thanks.
Flipside: If getting both Ps and Lightroom is no incentive to you (raises hand), you're getting no additional benefit, with the drawback of always being chained to that payment. After paying X amount for a disc, you have it. And as long as your machine will run it, it's always yours, no question...and if it continues to meet your needs, you don't have to upgrade.
This is nothing more than a corporate measure taken to ensure that its customers are forced to provide constant revenue, nothing more. And attempts to sugar coat it are unconvincing at best, and deceptive kowtowing at worst.
tkbslc: I might finally cave.
That's about 5 years of $10 a month to add up to the retail cost of buying the software retail before.
Better still, they could give the customer the option to decide what's best for them. The forced tradeoff of paying more for things you don't want/need is never a positive...same with someone else deciding what's best for you.
peevee1: What's the point? Cheaper than the lens alone, these days you can get E-PM2 (with IBIS and better sensor and EVF support)+14-42 +40-150, and that 40-150 is faster, sharp and 70g lighter and focuses with the speed of light.
What UWA are you using in the EOS M line vs the m43 offerings? There's no basis for comparison, which kind of proves the point.
Marty4650: It might have been interesting to see how well the Nikon 1 AW1 performed against these cameras. Compared to the four cameras reviewed, the Nikon 1 has a "huge sensor."
Mike, in 35mm equivalence, the AW1 is only 2mm longer at 27mm than the Oly's at 25mm. If that's a deal breaker, regardless of any other factor, well I guess that's okay, but you'd have to agree that's highly subjective.
Also, in terms of low light, the AW1 with the 10mm lens has more than double the aperture area of the TG-3. Clearly making it the better low-light option.
Robemo: Never understood these 'camera-phone' reviews. I don't know anyone who is serious about photography that uses a phone. I do know a lot of people using their phone for taking 'social events' pictures and then sending them to friends. They don't give a hoot about 'ultimate' quality images. It's about sharing a very basic image. Most of the time the images stay in the phone until memory runs out (and then they come to me ...'Help, my camera is not working anymore !'). If they ever print such an image, which they seldom do, it will be postcard size. The images in this review of the M8 look good enough for that for sure. Make these reviews more realistic by aiming at how almost everyone uses their phone and not by reviewing it for the rare geek that uses their camera phone like a Hasselblad.
Yeah, all except the fact that "your remarks" are based on your lack of perspective.
If you care so little about the subject, why keep commenting? Nobody here wants to know what you have to say after you've proven how ridiculous you are.
Sounds like Zuck is losing Instagrammers to VSCO Cam...
Marty4650: This A6000 is a really nice camera, but so is the NEX-6, which can be bought at a huge discount now. Amazon is currently selling it for $520... with lens, and $440 without.
Sony continues to amaze me with their incredible values in camera bodies (but not so much for lenses.)
They have so many irons in the fire right now (SLT Alpha, E mount, FE mount, FF SLT, high end compacts, etc) that you wonder if they risk becoming a jack of all trades, but a master of none?
I think so far they have done a pretty good job of offering innovation, performance and value. I just hope it all works out to profitability for Sony, so their users can look forward to another decade of great cameras.
Paul, that's not an accurate comparison (and I think you know it), but even at that, with the limited lens stable for their full frame mirrorless, Sony can only be considered the "leader" of the segment in which they're the only player because they're the only player.
That's like saying Leica is the leader in digital rangefinders. Outside of the Epson model, they're the only game in town.
If you're comparing based on versatility & price as well as sensor size, then I don't see the Sony full frames as competitive with any of the APS-C or m43 offerings...roughly on par with the Nikon CX system, though in the total opposite direction.
Masters of compact? Absolutely. The closest thing to the RX100 is the Panasonic LX7, and while definitely aimed at a different purpose, is clearly edged out overall by the Sony offering.
The Masters of the MILC? That's definitely far more subjective, especially when you take into account that lens selection and availability play heavily into such things. I think that the E-M1 and X-T1 are the equals, if not betters, of the a6000 when you take all factors into account. Different animals, to be sure, but all told, it doesn't leave Sony as the clear leader.
Full frame...I think that's just your personal wishes talking. This is one area where Canon and Nikon, regardless of innovation, still sit comfortably atop the heap, even based on lens selection alone, but also from decades of leading the industry. That inertia will not be halted within a ten year span. Maybe 5-10 years down the road, Sony may be an equal player in that game, but for now, it's simply not the case.
"I don't know anyone who is serious about photography that uses a phone."
Then go crawl back in your third world hole and quit posting here. Every one I know that knows a viewfinder from a lens mount carries a smart phone, and every one of those smart phones has a camera. For a photo enthusiast, the quality/capabilities of their camera's phone, while not everything, are a greater factor in their purchasing decisions than an average person, so reviews like this can help them get a phone that best balances their need for features and a (relative) quality camera.
Only an idiot would complain that a smart phone doesn't stack up against a dedicated camera. That's not at all the point. By that rationale, dpr should only review "full-frame" and larger sensors, because anything smaller is pointless.
D1N0: Lacks OVF and top lcd. Cons in my book.
"A Pro can choose what works for them..."
True...and the vast majority choose Canon and Nikon. Funny how that works.
Cideway: So just like Pentax's SP coating that they have been using since '07
A good Pentax owner never misses an opportunity to whine about their brand...and where no opportunity exists, they'll make one.