Joel Benford: I've never seen a 493 ppi screen, I thought the "retina" was meant to be all we need.
Is 493ppi useful?
Is it regularly useful?
If it's not regularly useful, would we be better off with more battery life?
Samsung, LG, Nexus brings Apple's retina to whole new retard level for quite some time already.
Xiaomi Mikey is just a dollar.
Not again, another junk.
Scottelly: This is stupid. NOBODY prints anymore . . . especially not in a small format. The only prints I have made in the last 5 years are 8x10 or bigger. Why would I want to print smaller than that? EVERYONE has a smart phone.
Look at the success of Fuji Instax.
Roll effect? what stupid feature is it? On second thought, it may be useful for disabled people who are semi paralyzed and have problem pressing button on the phone.
Nikon need to be very cautious not to cross the specifications of its full frame siblings.
The mirrorless SLR are DOA. Who wants an expensive half boiled egg in the first place? And there comes camera in a phone...
Why not just send her the files. Save all the unnecessary resources.
Roland Schulz: Hmm, maybe I'm wrong, but why is this all blue in the review?? This lens is soft like a pillow, see in the river shoots at f8! Somewhat sharp in the center but completly butter off center.By the way I'm a Nikon user, not that happy with the extreme corners of the 24-70 2.8G, but what I see here is nothing I would accept.
BTW2: The review from IR is not that all positive, nor the diagram is.
Maybe your photography skills ain't good enough?
Its definitely not from the production. Many of user reported having this after some usage. Its a design issue. e.g. parts rubbing and releasing micro fragments. The fragments is something that may not be removable by the ultrasonic sensor cleaner.
disasterpiece: Thanks, but I'll stick with Nikon.
What does it have to do with Nikon? isn't that a stupid answer?
Phil Hill: Why is the inability of a camera to place phone calls listed under “The bad”? Is this really bad? Did Samsung advertise that ability? Do other cameras have that ability? I understand that most cell phones can also take photos, but I’m not aware of cameras that make phone calls. So how is that exclusively considered bad on this one?
I do get the point that the reviewer would have liked to make a phone call, but is it fair to deduct points for that?
The product exist for the sake of existing. Its just like carrying 2 wallets in your pocket, except one has a coin pouch.
Its the ugliest tough camera in the world, no doubt. I do not want anyone to say, "hey, look at that ugly thing he is using".
AV Janus: Price difference between Alu and Carbon units is ridiculous!I wonder how they came up with that number!?
Carbon stopped being that exclusive and price worthy like 10 years ago...
Alu tubes uses simplest form of extrusion process. Carbon tubes need layering and curing.
Deleted pending purge: So why not use triangular profile for all construction and save maximum space?
If you could think of a tighten mechanism when you extend and retract.
Juraj Lacko: So what is the big deal that everybody is complaining about seeing mobiles on dpreview? All modern phones have build in cameras. BTW those cameras are killers of compact cameras and who knows, maybe in the future they will kill dslr as well... Just dont read article if yu are not interested in phones. Is that so hard?
"maybe in the future they will kill dslr as well"? Yes, maybe when photo journalist use only mobile phones to do their job.
JWest: "the S800c has an advantage over most smartphones of having a removable battery"
Are you an iPhone owner, by any chance? :)
Most smartphones have a removable battery, and have had for a long time. It's mostly just Apple that buck the trend.
Google Nexus phone can't. Please Wake up.
Rachotilko: To DPR team:
to reduce the confusion, would you not consider an article about the f-number equivalence ?
The question "does the need to apply f-number equvalence apply to DOF calculation only or to shutter speed calculation as well" has been hotly debated here for quite a long time.
Some basic lesson in photooptics would silence this, I hope.
There it goes again, debating for no useful purposes.
I thought there is a build in vibration-based dust removal?
I classify those who whine about little things into incapable photographers. Seriously speaking even the lowest grade DSLRs nowadays are so advance and so capable that it would only be the photographers's problem not to have taken good photos. I am still using primitive old 5D with max iso 1600 and very happy with the images.