I wonder if it is rooted to start with? $50 for extra 48GB seems reasonable too.
GSM: 850, 900, 1800, 1900MHz WCDMA: Bands: 1/2/4/5/8 LTE: Bands: 1/3/4/7/17/38/40
While it is more promising, I'm not impressed with their samples. Cannot focus to infinity, low resolution and they have to resort to using miniature dollhouse / toys to demonstrate their capability.
And the cost of the film and to develop the film are?
Toh: Samsung S4 battery is 2600mAh. To fully charge it in 26 seconds the minimum charging current would be 360A regardless of material used. 360A is more than a typical current draw when cranking a car. The cable used has to be at least the size of car battery cable, which gets hot when cranking for too long. A typical USB cable would evaporate in a split of a second! If the charging voltage is 5 volts you would need a 1.8KW (360A*5V) charger! Current S4 charger is about 10W!
If a 9.88Wh battery can be fully charged in 26 seconds. Then the same battery being able to accept a charge from 110V no longer seem impossible.
Samsung OEM battery is 3.8V or 9.88Wh. With a typical 5V 500mA charger, it would take ~4 hours to charge the OEM battery from empty. If the charger is 273A, it will take 26 seconds.
However, if your charger is 110V. You just need 12.4A, theoretically speaking.
Better yet, if you just need to reach 10% capacity (as in the case of the article). You just need 1.24A.
They use proprietary battery. I'm pretty sure a fully charged Galaxy S4 runs more than 2-3 hours. Knowing this is an interview, most likely it is closer to 2 hours or maybe less. And their "normal use" likely is not watching 1080p video continuously or talking non-stop.
Good progress but I'm not drinking their Kool-aid.
daddyo: This is actually quite impressive. Just a few years back, no one would have imagined these kinds of ISO settings, nor this kind of image quality at such settings.That said, crappy light is still crappy light, and just because you can shoot in this light and get a discernible image is no reason to become obsessed with shooting in crummy light anymore than is absolutely necessary.Shooting in these lighting conditions is like trying to see how many pots of coffee you can brew using the same grounds -- after a while it becomes a bad joke.
You don't have to shot as high a ISO as the sample but the point is lower ISO is still going to be better. If the material calls for natural light, say at ISO 6400, this camera is ready for the task.
Richard Franiec: It is really refreshing and encouraging to see the smaller player like Sigma to go toe to toe with the legend like Zeiss. For fraction of the price.I'm watching recent Sigma's unpretentious approach to their new product with awe.
This lens among the other Art Series lenses should serve as a bucket of an ice water on the heads of disillusioned profiteers from major brands.
I wouldn't call $949 without optical stabilization cheap. Not when a legacy 50mm 1.4 can be had for $50 or less. The price difference is too large to justify the auto focus. I don't care about aperture because I shot in A mode anyway.
I have a feeling the pictures had been tampered with. The Sony A7 looks thinner than it is.
joe6pack: The M43 sensor is 17.3mm x 13.0mm. Now they come up with a 21mm x 12mm. 17.3mm -> 21mm is a significant difference to me. It means many existing lens will be showing vignetting. Am I missing something here?
If this camera is gaining popularity. It could also mean that future M43 lens will be bigger to accommodate the wider sensor, covering 21mm x 13mm. That may not be such a good news for M43.
24.19 / 21.64 = 1.11783733826247689463
For most people who work with math, it rounds to 1.118. Or 11.8% longer.
"Longer" because diagonal is a length. For area, it is 1.118^2 or 25% "larger".
I thought the original M43 advantage was that it is closer to a circle and therefore the lens is slightly easier to make.
The diagonal for new sensor is 24.19mm. By my calculation, the circle now needs to be 25% larger.
Frank_BR: "Interestingly, the company says both cameras will have Super 35 sensors (around 21 x 12mm), which is wider than the original Four Thirds sensor format "
The difference in the diagonal, which is what matters, is only 2.5mm.
That's close to 12% more. In other words, the circle needs to be 25% larger. Seems quite significant to me.
The M43 sensor is 17.3mm x 13.0mm. Now they come up with a 21mm x 12mm. 17.3mm -> 21mm is a significant difference to me. It means many existing lens will be showing vignetting. Am I missing something here?
Heart warming story. Sometimes, the photos in a camera is worth more than the camera itself.
I had some precious photo that was lost in an xD card (thanks Olympus!). I would certainly willing to pay twice the price of the card to get my photo back.
ybizzle: Nokia seems to be going backwards with the cameras in their phones. You had the best with the 808, then the 1020 with a smaller sensor and now this with even smaller sensor! What's going on?
I'm sick of hearing this argument. Did you notice how thick the 808 is compared to the 1020?
Given that the 930 is an Icon clone and Verizon has exclusive distribution right on the Icon. It seems 930 will not be coming to US for a year or so.
I wonder how it compares to 925. Which recently was going for just $200.
An enthusiast COMPACT? Nice try. I'm not falling for your April Fool's prank.
The job on the OM-G w/ battery grab is really poor. Surely you guys know how to take pictures of lens and use photoshop?
peevee1: 2 years ago Olympus made a bold step of releasing TG-1 with 1.5-2 stops better lens than the competitors. 2 years later, with only small updates, it (now TG-3) stays the best in the category.What a sad state of affairs when competitors cannot leapfrog the leader, as it used to be. Brand new Nikon AW120 is still a stop behind...
The Nikon 1 made up for it with bigger sensor and RAW support.
Sony is ripping off the Ausies