Impulses: For $99/year it better include half a terabyte of storage and/or a desktop license... Otherwise it could be the best version of LR ever and it still wouldn't be worth the asking price.
I say that as someone who's still using LR on PC, but there's already alternatives on mobile. Something tells me this was less of an unintentional leak and more of a "let's float a pricepoint out there early and see how they react".
The Cloud rules! I'm in.
Absolutic: who in the right mind will pay $99 a year for a mobile phone software?
Me me me!!!!!!
Lets see here, crappy IQ, not the sum of its parts, can't make phone calls, massively overpriced, very few lenses available. So what is the point?
The reason wedding photographers are crying about smartphone photographers is that they are demonstrating there is no need to hire a professional photographer for big bucks.
jamesbm: Wouldn't it be a bolder editorial stance to not give awards when basically none of the cameras seem to take good pictures and all have fitness for purpose flaws - displays that cannot be viewed outdoors, poor battery life, badly thought out controls etc?
You simply do not understand the physics of shooting underwater. The water changes the physics. A lens used underwater must be optimised for underwater shooting and focussing. You cannot optimise a lens so it works equally as well underwater and in air. So every one of these style cameras work better either in air or in the water. But none of them can work great in both environments.
Deleted pending purge: Aside from designing it to look like a doggie rubber bone, they have botched the sealing principle again. I am beginning to suspect there must be some sworn-in clandestine reason for all rugged-camera manufacturers to stubbornly continue creating this weak spot on purpose. There really is no reason on Earth for the ridiculous design (Canon D20 suffers from that as well) and in the same time refusing to apply the reliable sealing system. There must be something wrong with people who think both the funny design and risky sealing will add to the selling highlights, whatever the rest of the features. I'll pass, until someone manages to put all the useful features into the properly designed casing, which, by the way, should have less of the funny shapes, colors and whatnotproof text printed all over, but rather much more thought invested into its primary purposes.
You all don't understand underwater housings. If they were to use an O ring then it would have to be lubricated before it went into the water every single time. This is not a professional rig, this is for amateurs. Amateurs aren't going to grease an O ring before every dive. Therefore their camera won't last more than a few times in the water before flooding.
If you want O rings buy a professional housing. It is moronic to expect it in lightweight consumer products.
Rod McD: Quote from the conclusion :- "Details are smudged at base ISO (though likely not an issue for target audience)"
Why is there this ongoing assumption that people who like the outdoors aren't interested in better IQ? In my experience, people who want tough, WR cameras to take to wild places greatly value where they go and the images they bring back. Perhaps the target audience who buy these cameras do so because there's simply nothing better available. It doesn't mean it isn't wanted and wouldn't sell. And no, one shouldn't have to carry a D4 in housing. We need something in-between - a modern day Nikonos with a fixed wide to standard zoom.
Surely someone could make a better small WR camera with a 1"- APSC sensor, a WA zoom, and real O-ring seals? Yes it would weigh more and cost more, but many would be prepared to pay more for a comprehensively better outdoor camera.
"Why is there this ongoing assumption that people who like the outdoors aren't interested in better IQ? "
It is not an assumption. If you are interested in taking high IQ photos underwater this is not the camera you would buy. You would get a housing for your DSLR. Anyone who thinks a $300 camera is going to get great IQ photos underwater is living in a dreamworld.
I notice the screen is blank so it must be an iPhony.
You can put lipstick on a pig but it is still a pig.
David247: The best camera is always the camera you have in hand, but this poll is a popularity rating. There are many good cameras these days, in fact you have to go out of your way to find a bad camera. Not every camera can be in the list. A lower "popular" rating does not make a camera bad. Not making the list doesn't make a camera bad. I grew up in a time when large format and medium format were still the kings. 35mm, including Leica was often considered a "toy" camera due to "poor image quality". However versatility and portability of 35mm won the heart of "field" journalists". It was 35mm, with its then inferior image quality, that made photography popular as it is today. Look back into the photos of the 50's and 60's. Many of the images were seriously substandard in quality, but their spontaneity and reality changed the world. In the end it is always the photographer that makes the image and the difference. Pick the tool that works best for you. No bad choices here.
I voted and I don't own any of those cameras, so it is not exactly a popularity contest.
Mark Evans Kent: I never comment on anything here, but I have to now. We bought an A57 for my other half - with a view to me holding out for this A99 so we could share the system.
The EVF is great, but as we own horses the panning was pants. Sure, 12 frames a second is immense, but not so much fun when you have 500 empty pictures as the picture you see is the one previous and you can't see a current view while panning. The horse you're trying to follow has just turned left and you're still heading right for 2-3 seconds before an empty picture arrives at your eye.
Wonderful technology the SLT and I love the handling, but as an out and out photographic tool for ALL uses, this causes it to fall short somewhat. Terrific if you're not panning unpredictable subjects.
Quite fancy the RX1 though to replace my X100!
I have been using an a55 for two years and I shoot primarily BIF. I have no problem panning. I really don't think from your remarks that you even own an a57.
It is strange to read all these moronic comments from people who are obviously do not know one thing about this mission. There are 17, count them, 17 cameras on board. So far only a few of the cameras are working. In a week or so when Curiosity has all her systems checked out and all her cameras working you are going to see some hi res images that will make you drool.
Geir Ove: I do not understand this "over-focus" on what OS any device is running: If the device (PC. phone, whatever) does its job and runs the apps you need, who cares?
I am a programmer and develop farily advanced systems: The OS is NOT important, but the applications I can run on it is: They make up the system!
A tip on the 808 Blown Highlights: Manually turn on the ND filter in bright sunlight! It should turn om Automatically in Auto mode, but for 3-8 MPix res it does not seem to do this from tests I did yesterday. However, it does seem to work in full res 38 MPix mode. I will do more tests to try to verify this.
>The OS is NOT important,
Wrong! The OS is not important to YOU. To many other people the OS is very important. For example, I would never buy any product using Apples OS.
> Unlike most Android owners, Apple device owners view even their mobile phone devices as software platforms, and they want and buy apps to enjoy on them.
>Photographers, like most computer artists, tend to be Mac oriented.
What a bunch of horse stuff. Put down the crack pipe and step away from the monitor.
Mirko123: Did they introduce this firmware update instead of a genuine upgrade?If thats the case, then what about improving noise and ISO performance?
Nice update, but in reality, this is all just fluff!
Increasing the buffer from 15 to 25 shots is fluff???
IcyVeins: The Sony A99 is going to utterly destroy this camera and the D800
Canon and Nikons market share has been falling and Sonys has been going up. Hurts doesn't it?