The world's slowest camera.
webrunner5: Get over it people. A smartphone is with you 24/7. You are NOT going to have some camera thingy with a lens that is 2 inches long in your purse or pocket.
So Smartphones are the way and only way to go. They will get better every generation.
Yes and no. Every tool has its use—and every job has its tools.
teeoh717: It definitely is intriguing, but my original three-year-old Moto Droid (that I still haven't gotten the opportunity of ditching just yet) has a higher 854x480 resolution display (@ 265ppi), even at an inch smaller...
180ppi (320x640) on a phone with a 41 megapixel camera?? What exactly was Nokia thinking? Utter deal breaker in my opinion.
There's a reason most new DSLR screens carry 270+ ppi density. Going "back" to anything lower is a noticeable step backwards. What a shame.
"funny world old days photographers do care about lens metering and outcome IQ."As if I don't care about final image quality. I am exactly one of those photographers of which you speak. I had my fair share of days with the original flagship series DSLRs, with their tiny low resolutions screens That was 2001. This is 2012.
Instead of ripping into you for comparing a Nokia phone and a Leica M and its respective artistic MO, I'll just say this:
I have found myself in situations that have made the use of the viewfinder impossible. After updating to cameras with live view, I quickly realized the benefit of a high resolution screen. You'll have a glorious 41 megapixels of OOF mess if you can't accurately place your focus where you *think* it is and should be, especially if you don't even have an actual viewfinder.
Regardless, you cannot ignore the fact that 320x640 on a 4" screen is inexcusable for 2012. It's a touch phone. It has a screen. That is inherently its main function.
It definitely is intriguing, but my original three-year-old Moto Droid (that I still haven't gotten the opportunity of ditching just yet) has a higher 854x480 resolution display (@ 265ppi), even at an inch smaller...
ZAnton: Another stupid technology. Reading nano letters becomes cool. I have 22" 1900*1200 and I cann't normally read in internet (I don't wear glasses and have good vision). Have to scale up to 125%. Well, all pictures are scaled up too.On the win7 I also scale up everything to 125%. But old programs, which do not support that, it is practically impossible to work. Letters are under 1 mm height.Same problem in PS. If I paint (i.e. the mask), I can not see the border very good. So I have to scale up the image to 150-200%.
So what is the use of that excessive resolution?Another p. enlargement pill?
"Another stupid" interpretation of the retina display. OS X uses effective resolution independence.Clearly this is just another user dismissing something like a child because they don't understand it.
slobodanr: There have been some so-so stories in the news section at times, but this is really a step too far. What has this got to do with Digital Photography? Are we going to be getting an in-depth review of it? Is every laptop/monitor that gets announced with an interesting new feature going to be advertised here, or is that only reserved for Apple products?
...seriously? DPR simply announced a product that applies this breakthrough screen technology to the mobile platform. 2880x1880 is far higher than any previously released 15" screen on a mainstream product, hands down—that's not an "interesting new feature", that is going to change how you LOOK at your photos sans the individual pixels.If you can't connect how that is related to DIGITAL photography... well then maybe you should crawl back under your bridge.
As a Canon user, I couldn't imagine owning a 36mp camera without the option of sRaw. I use it *all the time* with my 5DII.
And I'm sorry, but the Lossless/12 bit/compressed RAW options are useless in my mind. Why would photographers want reduce the quality of their photos? We're talking about reducing *size*, not quality. Greatly limits the versatility of the D800—something that would prevent me from purchasing it if I were a D700 user.
There are simply times that I am not shooting for billboards. Sometimes it simply comes down to the fact that I am shooting for Facebook on a long trip with no opportunity to dump the card. Why waste the space and time in post??
marianco: The price leader for 4K Professional Cameras is Red.
When you price a Red Scarlet 4K camera starter kit, you realize that without lenses, the price starts at $17,000 for the body with battery, LCD screen, etc.
The Red Zoom lenses start at $6000 for a 17-50 mm Zoom.The Red Prime lenses start at $4250 for the 100 mm lens.
In comparison, Canon's EOS-1D C costs only $15,000. And you can start your lens kit with the $120 50mm prime or the $950 24-105 L Zoom.
Canon is so much less expensive.
The fact that RED's shoot RAW video inherently make it that much more expensive. Suddenly your workflow becomes a thousand times more complicated, often requiring a slew of accessories (many of which are essential in the first place).I will agree that with a DSLR and a lens, you're good to go. Throw in a CF card and start shooting.
Try to do the same with a RED, and I wish you luck—because you're going to need it.
That said, you're getting what you pay for with both time and money. The end result of the RED will of course trounce any compressed DSLR footage.
All depends on what is needed to get the job done.
Absolutely stunning. I'd hesitate to call any photograph perfect, but I wouldn't know what else to call this shot.
Fantastic job, congrats.