TimT999: Wow. I'm surprised that DP Review made such an amateur mistake. The review compared the Zeiss' image quality against the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8. Canon has two 50mm lenses that are considered far better than the 50mm 1.8 -- the f 1.4 and f 1.2. So why use the 1.8 -- at $100 it's the cheapest lens Canon sells.
It's true that the Zeiss is a 1.8. But anyone who is a pro shooter would be looking at Canon's 1.4 or 1.2. So DP should have used a Canon lens of comparable value and cost and then dialing one of those lenses up to 1.8 to do an apples to apples comparison.
Wally, your point about the use of a 36 MP sensor also backs up my point about this not being an apples to apples comparison. You have several Canon lenses that are better in low light and sharper than the $100 Canon. But the $1000 Zeiss is compared to the cheap plastic Canon and the (admittedly amazing) level of resolution you get with the Zeiss is partly a result of having a camera with a sensor that's far sharper than what's on a Canon.
The lens is obviously a thing of beauty but the writeup weakens the test because they made the $100 Canon their reference lens. If DP had used the $1600 Canon f 1.2, they would have made their case far more effectively.
Wow. I'm surprised that DP Review made such an amateur mistake. The review compared the Zeiss' image quality against the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8. Canon has two 50mm lenses that are considered far better than the 50mm 1.8 -- the f 1.4 and f 1.2. So why use the 1.8 -- at $100 it's the cheapest lens Canon sells.
digitallollygag: All of these "clip-on" gadgets are a compromise. Why won't Apple simply make a digital camera first that also happens to be a smartphone second, as an OPTION to the iPhone device we use now? Then they'd once and for all beat Canon and Nikon at their own game since those two are not particularly cutting-edge with connectivity...
What I find "unbearable" is commenters who attack others just because of the product choices they make. Why call someone names just because you prefer a different product?
yabokkie: I don't think any of these can be called good, by which I mean "can compete with 35mm format."
never the less these are no worse than Japanese. mirrorless is the future that established Japanese makers do not want to face. because it opens a new world for many new comers to join, Koreans, Chinese, and maybe even German (not rubbish brands like Leica or Zeiss, but their real talent to actually design and make cameras and lenses).
Actually Howabout, your assumption is incorrect. I was looking at the actual test images here: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/samsung-nx210/5and here: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/samsung-nx210/6and then dialing in the Canon 5D III to compare both at different ISO levels.
I suggest you look those images yourself to see how a full frame compares with the Samsung -- especially at higher ISOs. I think you'll agree that at 1600 and 3200 ISOs the Samsung JPGs just turn into mush.
I agree with Mescalamba that it's ridiculous to compare the Samsung with a full frame. And that's why my initial response was to Viking, who says that the camera DOES compete with a full framer. Comparisons of the Samsung with APS-C cameras are totally appropriate since they are similarly priced. But let's not pretend that the IQ is the same as a full frame.
Viking, I'm not sure which full frame you are comparing the Samsung to. But when I dial in the Samsung against the Canon 5D III in the DP comparison tool, the IQ is not even close.
Compare the two in jpg and the Samsung 210 image turns to mush above ISO 800. Even in raw the Samsung image is unusable by 3200 -- essentially the same IQ as the Mark 5 III has at 128,000.
The Samsung can't begin to compete with any of the better full frame cameras out there. And as the DP review points out, it isn't even competing with the better crop DSLRs at the higher ISOs.
I don't know about you, but I use 3200 and 6400 a fair amount for indoor/night shooting (and get great results with the Mark 5) so for me the Samsung is a non-starter.
TimT999: I'm disappointed by the lens reviews. For many of us, the excitement of the mirror less approach is to have near-DSLR quality in a smaller form factor. Yet these lens reviews don't include DSLR comparisons to give us that context.
Obviously the Nex lineup can't come close to a full frame -- and no one would expect that. But if I'm going to consider one of these mirror less systems, I want to know if it can come close to (or better!) the crop systems that Canon and Nikon is coming out with now.
After all, these Sony lenses are priced comparably -- I can currently get the Canon 24-105mm L for under $800 from lots of vendors. So why not include a Canon/Nikon crop body/lens system in the mirrorless system reviews done by DxO and DPReview so we know how these newer technologies stack up?
Andy, I appreciate your replying to my comment about not including more context of NEX or 4/3 reviews against DSLRs. And I have certainly used (and appreciate) your side-by-side compare tool.
My point is that your reviews do provide context between mirrorless systems -- how a Panasonic stacks up to a Sony Nex. But I feel we should have that same level of context to the DSLR system in the article text. As it is, someone has to dig into the compare tools to do that groundwork.
If mirrorless is is ready for the big leagues, you need to say it. And if it's still not up to snuff you need to tell us.
I'm disappointed by the lens reviews. For many of us, the excitement of the mirror less approach is to have near-DSLR quality in a smaller form factor. Yet these lens reviews don't include DSLR comparisons to give us that context.
I expected a bit more meat on this article when I clicked on it. As it is this is hardly more than a link through to Forbes.
GatanoII: What's the point of comparing an Android phone camera to an iOS phone, no one is going to switch system based on a camera.
Redo the test with the best selling Android phone as a reference and then it's a fair comparison, Galasy S3 vs HTC One that's what could be interesting, even if the One must be compared to the S4 as this are the phones that are going to battle in the stores ... and do extended video comparison as many people care more about video on a phone than photos now, since memory space is not a problem any more (especially the phones with big microSD cards)
Actually the iPhone 5 is significantly better than the 4S in low light -- a feature that several of the tech sites have pointed out. Here's the Gizmodo review comparing the iPhone 5 with the 4S:
"Apple's greatly improved the image processing on the iPhone 5 [over the 4S] such that the camera can now shoot up to a sensitivity of ISO 3200 while still ending up with less noise. This is a sea change."
So a test between the HTC and the 5 would have been a fairer test in terms of capabilities. And of course why compare phones using an older model anyway unless you are trying to give the new phone a little extra advantage. Regardless of the reasoning, using a 4S instead of the 5 was the wrong choice.
After reading all the possible uses of these glasses, it seems like a lot of hype for very little actual value. Lifelogging, helping fight crime, a spycam, proving to your spouse where you are -- what do any of these abilities have in a person's daily life?
It would be nice to have a camera that I can carry easily, but only if it were far higher quality than my camera phone. I don't see any killer app that's come out of the Google Glasses discussion so far. Just a lot of media hype that has more to do with Minority Report than a usable product.
I think I'm going to avoid these "hands-on" features from now on -- especially for these over-hyped consumer devices.
Every other paragraph seems to start out with a feature straight out of the company marketing materials and then says, "...but we didn't get to actually test it to see if it works properly."
A bunch of marketing specs are of absolutely no interest to a thoughtful reader. I want to know if the "feature" actually works as promised and how useful it would be in a real life situation. If you didn't test it, it's barely better than vaporware.
The same goes for the specs. The fact that the unit has 13 MP sounds great. Wow, it must be as good as a lot of point and shoots out now -- almost as good as a 14 MP DSLR. Oh wait, but what if the sensor is the same size as the old 8MP one -- some tiny chip that can't touch even a point and shoot. If that's the case then the added resolution is almost useless. Of course DP doesn't give us that fact. Just more corporate marketing.
I love the fact that so many people have such strong, antagonistic opinions on a subject based on a few paragraphs -- on a tech site that hasn't even used the device.
I see the same simplistic comments when I go to sites devoted to political issues. Thoughtful, considered judgements have become a rarity. And the fact that people get so angry about a phone seems particularly bizarre. Oh well.
TimT999: A fun review but unfortunately a bit breathless and hyped. The ability to use cropping to zoom is useful but the real issue isn't the pixel count, it's the sensor size. And we have yet to see whether the sensor is as good as the reviewer says.
The reviewer seems to want to believe that the Nokia has an IQ that's as good or better than a point and shoot. And on occasion he even suggests the camera is as good as an entry level DSLR.
But if you're going to make big claims, back it up. Show how the IQ stacks up against the G12 or a Rebel in low light -- use the standard DP Review test suite! The reviewer doesn't take that step and his "review" is not up to the usual level of this site as a result.
I'm glad Nokia chose to push the envelop and when they give the phone a more usable operating system, it will be worth a look. But the most exciting aspect of this story is that it raises the bar for the other smartphone manufacturers.
I stand corrected. Generally the DP reviews integrate the picture comparison tool right into the review. Here there was a link that opened a new page and I missed that link.
I would disagree with resuyaber though. I don't think the image quality (as opposed to the # of pixels) was any better than that of the G12 or other comparable point and shoots, and at 1600 ISO the Nokia was clearly worse.
And of course with a real camera you have a lens that can zoom in instead of cropping it's image with a digital zoom. So compare a G12 zoomed in to its 5x max with the Nokia for a true comparison.
As I said, this camera is raising the bar on what a camera phone can do but let's not pretend it's equivalent to a better P&S.
A fun review but unfortunately a bit breathless and hyped. The ability to use cropping to zoom is useful but the real issue isn't the pixel count, it's the sensor size. And we have yet to see whether the sensor is as good as the reviewer says.
klopus: Much ado about nothing. There are zillion of apps like it on the App Store already and for a long time. Just check Camera+, Camera Pro, King Camera, etc. I'm sure there are analogues on Android market. Camera Awesome also seems to lack stabilizer which all of the mentioned apps (and others) have.
A couple of questions for Andy:
1. Is the image stabilization an in-camera thing that cuts down on hand shake or the kind that doesn't let you take the picture until your hand stops shaking?
2. I saw the screen on the app that allows users to buy extra filters but it didn't seem to explain what the filters do. How would I find that out before I buy?
PS I've been using the app and it seems to have more functionality than I've seen from other photo apps. The one thing I would love to see is a preset slider that lets me set exposure compensation before I shoot. No one seems to have that.
Actually Nikki's numbers don't add up. She says she pays $15,000 a year in taxes. She also shows that after deducting all her business expenses (including the camera supplies) she is basically in the hole each year.
But if her business expenses take up all her profit, she would pay ZERO profits. That's all a write-off. So there may be a bit of exaggeration here.
I must be missing something. The article title says "Report: Sigma at PPE" and the only report I see is a few product shots. No analysis, no interview, just a few captions and links to old articles. DP should be able to do more than this.
But both him and a few of my friends keep trying to take pics indoors at night and it's almost always useless. And they want to take those pictures - they keep trying to - they just end up with either a blurry mess, or a washed out white pic from the "led flash".
To be fair though, for a lot of them they still only have a cameraphone anyways. But this is what keeps me from ever giving up my compact for a cameraphone.
If camera phones somehow ever got a decent flash, in the same size phones like the iPhone are now, that would really be the death of entry level compacts.
It's amazing how many folks here have decided about the lack of quality on this new phone -- and the phone isn't even out yet. Obviously this won't be at the level of any DSLR. But there's no reason why a high quality camera phone can't begin to compete with some of the point and shoots.
The web is full of folks who make knee-jerk judgements without knowing any of the facts and I'm pleased that DP cuts a bit deeper.
The one thing I dislike about DP is these interstitial pages and the way they spread the reviews out over so many linking pages. If there's a link from a Home Page to an article, go directly to the article. Don't put some useless page in front of the article just so your site can get more ad revenue. It's just a bad web usability experience.